Natioaai 

Muaicipal 

Review 

'^ol.  XI,  No.  8  August,   1922  Total  No.  74 


The  Political  Integration 
of  Metropolitan  Communities 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE 


ATIONAL   MUNICIPAL  LEAGUE 

RUMFORD  BUILDING,  CONCORD,  N.  H. 
EDITORIAL  OFFICE,  261  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 


second-class  matter  April  15,  1914,  at  the  post-office  at  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  under  the  Act  of  August  24,  1912. 
:  for  mailing  at  special  rate  of  postage  provided  for  in  Section   1103,  Act  of  October  3.  authorized  December  24,  1920. 


NATIONAL 
MUNICIPAL    REVIEW 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY  BY  THE 

National  Municipal  League 

Harold  W.  Dodds,  Editor 


The  NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  Ri:\'IEW  is  sent  to  all  members  of  the 
National  Municipal  League.  Those  who  do  not  desire  to  lieconie  members  of 
the  League  may  subscrilie  to  the  REVIEW  l)y  paying  five  dollars  a  year  in 
advance.  Canada  subscription  rates  6.5. 'iS  in  advance;  foreign  $5.50.  Checks 
should  be  made  payable  to  the  National  Municipal  League  and  mailed  to  261 
Broadway,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Intboductio.v as 

IL   What  Has  Been  .Accomplished iSO 

Detachment  of  Baltimore  from  Baltimore  County;  Formation  of  Greater  Philadelphia; 
Consolidation  of  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco;  Separation  and  Simplification  at 
St.  Louis;  Formation  of  (Ireater  New  York;  Separation  and  Consolidation  of  Denver; 
Union  of  .Mlegheny  with  Pittsburgh;  Wheeling  Absorbs  Her  Suburbs;  Washington, 
D.C. 

HL   What  Remafns  to  be  .ArcoMPLisHEn 445 

The  Greater  Boston  Movement;  Chicago's  Problem;  I  nihcation  Proposed  for  ('leve- 
land;  Defeat  of  Proposed  Consolidation,  .\lamcda  County,  (California;  Proposed  City 
and  CountyConsolidalion,  Portland,  Oregon;  Consolidation  Movement  in  Los.Vngeles; 
Problem  of  Essex  County,  New  Jersey;  Uni6cation  Receiving  .\ttention  in  Other  Cities. 

I V.  Summary 251 


Griffenhagen  &  Associates,  Ltd. 

An  organization  of  engineers,  accountants,  and  specialists  in  the 
administrative  and  financial  problems  of  public  bodies  with  over 
ten  years  of  practical  experience  in  efficiency  and  economy  work. 

HeadquartersOffices  AT  116  S0UT.4  MICHIGAN  AVE.,  CHICAGO 


NATIONAL 
MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


Vol.  XI,  No.  8 


AUGUST,  VMi 


Total  No.  74 


THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF 
METROPOLITAN  COMMUNITIES 

BY  CHESTER  C.  MAXEY 

Western  Reserve  Universily 

I.     INTRODUCTION 


A  VERY  slight  acquaintance  with 
municipal  conditions  in  the  United 
States  discloses  the  fact  that  one  handi- 
cap under  which  practically  every  city 
of  magnitude  is  laboring,  is  political 
disintegration.  The  city  as  a  political 
entity  is  not  identical  with  the  metro- 
politan community  as  a  social  and 
economic  fact;  and  so,  like  a  house 
divided  against  itself,  the  metropolitan 
district  finds  itself  obliged  to  struggle 
for  civic  achievement  amid  the  con- 
flicts, dissensions,  and  divergences  of 
its  several  component  political  jurisdic- 
tions. In  no  two  communities  are 
conditions  precisely  the  same,  and  yet 
in  all  the  fundamental  difficulty  is 
political  disunity.  There  are  cases  in 
which  the  principal  source  of  difficulty 
is  the  overlapping  of  city  and  county, 
the  latter,  owing  to  the  growth  of  pop- 
ulation, having  become  a  superin- 
cumbent city  government;  in  others 
contiguous  suburban  municipalities 
participating  in  and  to  a  large  extent 
dominating  the  social  and  economic  life 
of  the  city,  are  politically  independent  of 
it;  and  in  still  other  cases  both  of  these 


conditions  co-exist  in  varying  degree 
and  form.  -^ 

To  assume,  as  is  often  done,  that  the 
political  dismemberment  of  a  metro- 
politan community  is  not  a  matter  of 
challenging  importance  is  a  fatuous 
mistake.  Not  only  does  it  militate 
against  economical  and  efficient  ad- 
ministration of  local  government  but 
it  gravely  impedes  all  progressive 
and  comprehensive  public  imder- 
takings.  The  great  problems  which 
demand  governmental  action  in  metro- ^ 
politan  communities — public  health, 
recreation,  public  utilities,  crime, 
and  the  like — hold  political  boundaries 
in  contempt.  And  the  only  effect  of 
multiplying  political  jurisdictions  for 
dealing  with  such  problems  is  to  ob- 
struct and  defeat  the  primary  purposes 
for  which  local  government  exists. 

It  is  only  fair  to  remark  that  such 
absurd  and  anomalous  structures  of 
local  government  are  not  the  result  of 
conscious  creation.  It  is  well  known 
that  political  development  seldom  keeps 
pace  with  social  and  economic  facts. 
Moreover,    the    metamorphosis    of    a 


dSnSiY 


230 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


small  rity  into  a  huge,  sprawling  center 
of  trade  and  industry  is  inevital)ly  at- 
tended with  all  sorts  of  bungling  legis- 
lation, and  is  doubtless  nuich  affected 
by  the  vicissitudes  of  factional  and 
partisan  warfare.  The  anomalous  po- 
litical dismemberment  of  the  poinila- 
tion  of  a  larger  metropolitan  district  is 
in  most  cases,  therefore,  largely  a  mat- 
ter of  historical  accident,  and  being 
such,  is  commonly  accepted  by  the  in- 
habitants as  a  natural  and  normal  state 
of  affairs. 

There  are,  however,  a  few  places 
where  movements  for  the  political 
unification  of  the  metropolitan  area 
have  been  inaugurated  and  ])ushe(l 
through  with  varying  degrees  of  suc- 


<-ess;  and  there  are  many  other  places 
in  which  such  movements  are  now  in 
progress.  These  movements  consti- 
tute an  interesting  and  imjjortant 
jihase  of  oiu-  nnmicipal  histor>\  but 
unfortunately  they  are  recorded  only 
in  fugitive  documents  or  fragmentary 
articles,  or  not  recorded  at  all.  In 
order  to  spare  the  student  of  municipal 
institutions  the  extensive  and  arduous 
research  neces.sary  to  consult  all  of 
these  ob.sciu-e  and  widely  dispersed 
sources,  the  attempt  is  here  made  to 
bring  within  the  compass  of  a  short  es- 
say a  sununary  of  the  main  facts  re- 
garding each  of  the  various  movements 
for  the  i)olitical  integration  of  metro- 
politan areas  in  the  United  i^tatcs. 


II.     WHAT    HAS    BEEN    AUCOMPLISHED 


DETACHMENT       OF       B.\LTIMORE       FROM 
n.\LTIMORE  fOlNTY:  18,51 

The  city  of  Haltimore  was  never 
politically  engulfed  in  a  county  like  the 
majority  of  American  cities.  From  the 
beginning  the  city  of  Baltimore  and 
the  county  of  the  same  name  were 
separately  represented  in  the  legislature 
of  the  colony,  and  this  separate  repre- 
sentation was  continued  by  the  con- 
stitutions of  1776  and  1788.  (^on- 
.sequently  the  city  early  became  an 
independent  factor  in  the  politics  of  the 
state,  and  it  was  not  therefore  a  radical 
departure  to  complete  the  detachment 
of  the  city  by  severing  it  entirely'  from 
the  county.  This  stej)  was  taken  in 
lH."il;  and  although  the  inner  history 
of  tliee\ent  remains  somewhat  obscure, 
it  appears  to  have  been  an  incident  of  a 
fierce  political  struggle  which  con- 
vul.sed  the  entire  slate.  Prior  to  1S")1 
the  government  of  Marj'land  was  in 
theory  and  practice  a  loose  confeder- 
ation of  coimties  and  cities  similar  in 
s|)irit  to  the  national  gt)\ernmenl  under 


the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The 
governing  body  was  a  bicameral 
legislature  in  which  counties  and 
cities  were  equally  repre.sented  re- 
gardless of  size.  i)oi)ulation,  taxable 
|)ro|)erty,  or  any  other  basis  of  ditfer- 
enlialion.  In(ieed  the  theory  frankly 
avowed  in  the  early  history  of  the 
state  was  that  these  counties  and  cities 
had  confederated  as  corporate  entities, 
and  conse(|uently  that  equality  was 
the  only  fair  basis  of  representation  in 
the  legislature. 

But  time  plays  havoc  with  all  theo- 
ries. The  rapid  growth  of  Baltinutre 
city  (piickly  engendered  acute  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  c(|ual  rcjtresenta- 
lion  principle,  and  this  was  aggravated 
by  the  increasingly  shameless  way  in 
which  the  rural  legislators  took  ad- 
vantage of  their  power  to  enact  tax 
l:iws  exi)loiling  the  city  for  the  benelil 
of  the  rural  .sections.  On  top  of  this 
came  the  nation-wide  surge  of  liemo- 
(Tatic.senli  men  t.  overt  urningall  existing 
political  alignments  and  sweeping 
,\ndrew   .bu'kson  into  the  Presiilency. 


1922]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES         231 


In  Maryland,  the  city  of  Balti- 
more and  the  other  urban  sections 
of  the  state  were  thrown  into  the  ranks 
of  the  Jacksonian  i)arty,  while  the 
riu^al  sections  of  the  state  remained  in 
control  of  the  opposition,  a  feeble  and 
hojieless  minority.  Immediately  there 
was  a  vehement  demand  for  legislative 
reapportionment,  but  the  minority  in- 
trenched behind  the  provisions  of  an 
illiberal  constitution  refused  to  he 
mo\ed.  The  demand  was  repeated 
with  increasing  insistence,  and  in  1836 
the  struggle  culminated  in  a  crisis 
which  carried  the  state  to  the  brink  of 
civil  strife.  '  Unable  to  resist  longer, 
the  legislature  in  1839  proposed  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  which  modified 
the  existing  basis  of  representation  but 
did  not  provide  representation  in  pro- 
portion to  population.  Still  the  agi- 
tation for  a  more  equitable  basis  of  rep- 
resentation did  not  subside,  and  as  a 
consequence  a  constitutional  convention 
was  called  in  1849.  This  body,  after  a 
prolonged  struggle,  submitted  a  consti- 
tutional draft  (which  was  ratified  in 
1851)  embodying  the  popular  basis  of 
representation  with  restrictions  apply- 
ing only  to  the  city  of  Baltimore.  As 
a  part  of  the  bargaining  by  which  this 
compromise  was  effected,  the  complete 
detachment  of  Baltimore  city  from 
Baltimore  county  was  agreed  upon. 
Accordingly  the  constitution  of  1851 
I)rovided  a  full  complement  of  county 
officers  for  the  city  of  Baltimore  and 
conferred  upon  the  city  the  status  of  a 
county.  - 

From  time  to  time,  as  the  city  of 
Baltimore  has  grown,  its  boundaries 
have  been  extended  by  the  annexation 
of  suburban  communities.  The  most 
recent  enlargement  of  the  city  in  this 
fashion  occured  in  1918  when  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state  passed  an  act  sub- 

iScharf,  History  of  Man/land,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  187-195. 
«  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1849,  passim. 


trading  .some  sixty  square  miles  from 
Baltimore  and  Anne  Arundel  counties 
and  adding  them  to  the  city  of  Balti- 
more. Although  the  law  provided  for 
no  referendum,  it  did  provide  for  com- 
pensating the  counties  which  had  lost 
territory  or  property  by  the  annexation. 
The  annexation  law  was  attacked  in  the 
courts  because  of  the  absence  of  a 
referendum  provision,  but  the  courts 
declined  to  invalidate  it  on  that  ac- 
count. One  of  the  prime  purposes  of 
the  annexation  measure  was  to  double 
the  waterfront  of  the  city,  and  thus  en- 
able it  to  extend  its  port  and  terminal 
facilities.  It  was  estimated  that 
100,000  people  were  added  to  the  popu- 
lation of  the  city  of  Baltimore  by  this 
annexation  of  suburban  communities. 


FORMATION  OF  GREATER  PHILADELPHIA: 

1854 

The  city  of  Philadelphia  as  laid  out 
by  the  founder  contained  an  area  of 
about  two  square  miles.  Population 
quickly  overflowed  these  narrow  limits. 
By  1850  the  population  of  Philadelphia 
county  was  409,045  of  which  only 
121,417  resided  within  the  corporate 
limits  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 
Outside  of  the  boundaries  of  the  city 
the  population  was  quite  as  thoroughly 
urban  as  within;  in  fact  the  entire 
county  was  a  unified  metropolitan 
center  in  all  respects  except  govern- 
ment. In  this  latter  particular  it  was 
preposterously  dismembered,  the  work 
of  local  government  being  partitioned 
among  forty  different  go\erning  bodies 
— ten  municipal  corporations,  ten  spe- 
cial boards,  six  boroughs,  thirteen 
townships,  and  one  county.  The  ef- 
fects of  this  condition  can  be  best 
described  by  quoting  the  language 
of  the  Select  Committee  of  Senators 
from  the  City  and  County  of  Phila- 
delphia reporting  to  the  state  senate 
in  1853: 


232 


NATIONAL  INRTNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


It  is  not  to  be  supposed  of  Lunian  Dature  that 
the  people  of  these  many  separate  local  govern- 
ments have  not  been  actuated  by  a  preference 
and  zeal  for  llieir  separate  interests,  nor  that  col- 
lisions and  hostile  feelings  have  not  arisen  ob- 
structive to  a  concert  of  measures  for  the  com- 
mon welfare.  With  no  paramount  or  pervasive 
power  of  legislation  or  control,  no  laws,  uni- 
formly operative  over  the  whole,  could  l>e 
adopted  or  executed  l>eyond  the  respective  bounds 
of  each.  Rioters  suppressed  in  one  jurisdiction 
take  refuge  and  find  impunity  within  another. 
Measures  of  public  improvement,  by  the  city  or 
respective  districts,  arc  arrested  at  the  extreme 
of  their  narrow  limits;  works  erected  competent 
to  supply  the  wants  of  all  with  but  slight  addi- 
tional expense,  are  curtailed  of  their  usefulness; 
and  other  works  at  large  expense  uselessly  erected 
by  other  corporations.  The  varying  laws  of  so 
many  localities  in  close  contiguity  are  so  numer- 
ous and  so  little  known,  that  citizens  in  their 
hourly  movements  arc  subjected  to  legal  obliga- 
tions and  powers  of  which  they  have  no  knowl- 
edge. These  divisions  and  unseen  lines  and 
complication  of  powers,  arc  potential  alike  to 
paralyze  or  arrest  every  effort  to  advance  the 
common  welfare  and  suppress  general  evils.' 

Appreciation  of  the  evils  described 
in  the  foregoinj;  quotation  was  cer- 
tainly a  strong;  stimulus  to  propaganda 
for  a  greater  and  a  unified  Philadel- 
phia, but  even  more  |)utent  perhay)s 
was  the  blow  to  Philadelphia's  pride 
when  .she  was  out-stripped  by  New 
York  in  the  race  for  size  and  commer- 
cial supremacy.  The  first  ilirect  step 
toward  unification  of  local  governments 
seems  to  have  been  taken  on  November 
16,  1H4!),  when  a  group  of  leading 
citizens  called  a  pidjlic  meeting  which 
in  turn  chose  an  executive  committee 
to  act  until  a  .second  meeting  .should  be 
held.  This  committee  in  IH.j]  ad- 
dressed a  memorial  to  the  legislature  of 
the  stale  praA'ing  for  legislation  to 
consolidate  Philadel|>hia  and  the  subur- 
ban mimicipalities;  and  two  members 
of  the  conuniltee,  John  Cadwalader 
and  Eli  K.  Price,  were  sent  to  Harris- 

■  Quutcd  in  Price,  Hiatory  of  Comolidation  in  Phita^ 
dtlphia.  Chap.  IV. 


burg  to  lobby  for  the  desired  legislation. 
However,  nothing  was  accomplished 
by  these  efforts. 

Riot.i  Help  Con.iolidaliun 

In  1853  Philadelphia  was  visited 
with  a  series  of  violent  and  riotous  dis- 
orders for  which  the  volunteer  fire  com- 
panies were  chiefly  responsible,  and  a 
group  of  influential  citizens  was  called 
together  to  consider  ways  and  means  of 
checking  these  disturbances.  This 
group,  which  incidentally  included  a 
niunljer  of  the  champions  of  consolida- 
tion, decided  that  drastic  legislation 
must  be  secured  and  that  as  a  means  to 
this  end  a  reform  ticket  must  be  put  up 
at  the  ensuing  election.  Therefore,  on 
July  30,  1853,  a  reform  convention  was 
held,  and  Eli  K.  Price  was  nominated 
for  the  state  senate  and  Mathias  W. 
Baldwin  and  William  C.  Patterson  for 
the  house  of  ^epresentati^■es.  Mr. 
Price  immediately  annoimced  that  he 
stood  for  consolidation  of  local  govern- 
ments in  Philatlel])hia  county  as  one  of 
the  prime  essentials  of  reform,  and  the 
other  candidates  were  impliedly  |)ledged 
to  the  same  measure.  After  an  ardu- 
ous campaign  all  of  the  reform  candi- 
dates were  elected,  and  Mr.  Price 
forthwith  called  a  conference  consisting 
of  the  senators  and  representatives  of 
the  city  and  the  county  of  Philadelphia 
and  certain  leading  advocates  of  con- 
solidation. Under  Mr.  Price's  Icailer- 
ship  this  conference  imdertook  to  frame 
a  consolidation  bill  and  a  new  charter 
for  the  city  of  Philadel|)liia.  ami  while 
it  was  engaged  in  these  labors  an  exten- 
sive campaign  of  propaganda  in  favor 
of  unification  was  carried  on  in  the 
newspajiers  of  the  city  and  the  county. 

The  legislative  measure  thus  ]ire- 
pared  was  presented  in  the  state  senate 
as  soon  as  the  legislature  assembled  in 
1854.  The  forces  behind  it  were  so 
influential  and  were  so  powerfully 
organizeil  that  they  pushed  il  through 


1922]      THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        233 


the  senate  in  the  nnprecedentedly 
short  period  of  two  weeks.  In  the 
house  of  representatives  it  was  passed 
with  equal  promptness;  and  on  the 
second  of  February,  1854,  it  received 
the  signature  of  the  governor.  This 
act  was  an  out-and-out  annexation 
measure.  The  boundaries  of  the  city 
of  Philadelphia  were  extended  to  coin- 
cide with  the  boundaries  of  the  county 
of  the  same  name,  and  all  of  the  outly- 
ing municipalities,  districts,  and  town- 
ships were  absorbed  by  the  city.  The 
government  of  the  city  was  remodeled 
in  such  a  way  as  to  render  it  more  ade- 
quate for  the  enlarged  area,  but  no 
striking  or  fundamental  changes  were 
made.'' 

The  immediate  results  of  the  con- 
solidation and  annexation  were  un- 
questionably beneficent.  For  many 
years  Philadelphia  and  her  environs 
had  been  disgraced  by  civil  turbulence 
almost  impossible  to  prevent  or  con- 
trol. Negro-baiters  intimidated  free 
negroes  by  unchecked  violence;  mobs 
of  native  workingmen  used  the  same 
methods  against  Irish  immigrants; 
over-zealous  Protestants  practised 
shameful  outrages  upon  Roman  Catho- 
lics; rival  fire  companies  were  wont  to 
do  pitched  battle  in  the  streets;  and 
not  infrequently  the  volunteer  fire  com- 
panies refused  to  extinguish  fires 
started  by  rioters  with  whom  they  were 
in  sympathy.  These  disturbances  and 
disorders  quickly  disappeared  when 
unified  local  government  went  into 
operation,  for  this  made  possible  an  ef- 
fective police  department  and  a  paid 
fire  department.  Other  beneficial  re- 
sults of  consolidation  were  the  develop- 
ment of  a  comprehensive  system  of 
water  supply  and  sewage  disposal  to  re- 
place the  separate  systems  of  the 
former  independent  municipalities;  the 
establishment  of  a  metropolitan  park 

*  Price,  Eittory  of  Consolidation  in  Philadelphia, 
paatim. 


system;  and  a  marked  increase  in  the 
assessed  valuation  of  property  through- 
out the  metropolitan  area. 

But  Philadelphia  County  Remained 

Unfortunately  the  county  of  Phila- 
delphia was  not  included  in  the  con- 
solidation of  1854,  although  many  be- 
lieve that  such  was  the  intent  of  the 
law  and  that  such  a  consummation 
was  only  averted  by  the  machinations 
of  scheming  politicians.  The  follow- 
ing newspaper  comment  afi'ords  some 
conception  of  the  unfortunate  conse- 
quences of  the  duplication  of  city  and 
county : 

Employes  dismissed  from  city  departments  are 
taken  care  of  in  county  offices  pm-ely  as  political 
dependents,  apparently  regardless  of  any  neces- 
sity for  their  services  to  the  public.  In  the  city 
employ  they  could  not  actively  engage  in  political 
work;  in  the  county  offices  they  are  under  no  such 
provision,  and  they  are  not  affected  by  the  civil 
service  law  under  which  appointments  under  the 
city  government  are  made.' 

On  account  of  these  conditions  the 
more  progressive  newspapers  and  q\\\c 
organizations  of  Philadelphia  are  be- 
ginning to  advocate  the  consolidation 
of  the  city  and  the  coimty  govern- 
ments, but  as  yet  no  organized  move- 
ment has  been  launched. 

CONSOLIDATION    OF    CITY    AND    COUNTY 
OF  SAN  FEANCISCO:  1856 

The  influx  of  population  into  Cali- 
fornia following  the  gold  discoveries  of 
1849  was  so  prodigious  that  political 
institutions  became  obsolete  almost  as 
soon  as  they  were  created.  The  state 
was  divided  into  counties  in  1850,  and 
later  in  the  same  year  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  was  created  with  boundaries 
practically  identical  with  those  of  a 
previously  established  county  of  that 
name.  Thus  from  the  first  there  was 
unnecessary  duality  of  government  in 

•  Philadelphia  Press,  Feb.  15,  1920. 


234 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


this  largely  urban  area.  Baneful  re- 
sults were  experienced  immediately. 
Extravagance  and  corruption  ran  riot ; 
the  tax  rate  and  the  public  debt 
mounted  to  opi)ressive  heights;  and 
every  effort  to  improve  conditions  was 
paralyzed  by  the  deplorable  inefficiency 
of  the  governmental  system.  "And 
what,"  said  Senator  W.  W.  Hawks  to 
the  state  senate  in  18.55,  "has  brought 
us  to  this  state  of  things?  This  intri- 
cate system  of  government;  affording 
a  thousand  chances  for  plunder,  and 
yrt  a  thousand  cloaks  to  hide  the  Cai- 
tiff who  robs  a  trusting  people.  This 
duplicate  set  of  officers,  officials,  hang- 
ers-on, loafers,  whippers-in,  and  gen- 
eral plunderers." 

A  few  turbulent  years  under  the 
dual  system  .served  to  convince  the 
better  elements  in  San  FrancLsco  that 
a  drastic  remedy  must  be  applied. 
Public  discussion  left  no  doubt  that 
nothing  short  of  a  majoroijeration  could 
effect  a  cure.  Wiile  there  was  much 
diversity  of  opinion  as  to  what  the 
nature  of  the  operation  should  be,  there 
was  univer.sal  agreement  in  the  propo- 
sition that  it  nuist  bring  about  simpli- 
fication. A  bill  for  the  con.soli<lation  of 
the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco 
was  introduced  in  the  legislature  in 
1855  by  Horace  Hawes,  an  assembly- 
man from  San  Francisco,  anti  enough 
supjwrt  was  gained  to  force  its  final  en- 
actment on  \\)r\\  19,  1850.  Under  the 
I)ro\isions  of  this  act  the  charter  of  the 
city  of  San  Francisco  was  repealed,  and 
there  was  created  a  corporation  styled 
"The  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco," which  was  to  act  in  the  twofold 
capacity  of  city  and  county.  The 
changes  in  the  form  of  the  government 
were  not  radical  in  principle,  being 
chiefly  excisions  and  consolidations. 
The  bicameral  city  council  was  super- 
seded by  the  county  board  of  super- 
visors; the  city  a.ssessors  were  rejilaced 
bv  the  counlv  assessor;  the  county  tax- 


collectors  gave  way  to  the  citycollector; 
and  many  similar  changes  were  made. 
A  few  duplications  survived,  as  in  the 
case  of  city  attorney  and  district  at- 
torney, but  they  were  not  sufficiently 
numerous  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  con- 
solidation. 

In  the  matter  of  economy  the  ad- 
vantage of  unified  local  government 
Ijecame  a])i)arent  at  once.  The  histo- 
rian Hittel  records  that  under  the  new 
scheme  of  government  the  exi)enses  of 
city  and  county  government  were  re- 
duced from  $5,640,000  in  1855  to 
$.350,000  in  1857.  Such  a  record  for 
economical  administration  certainly 
has  not  been  maintained  in  San  Fran- 
cisco throughout  the  succeeding  years, 
but  no  one  can  doubt  that  but  for  the 
unified  local  government  the  history  of 
public  finance  in  San  Francisco  would 
have  been  much  more  sordid  than  it  is. 
Other  benefits  claimed  to  be  attribut- 
able to  the  unified  government  are 
increased  efficiency,  freedom  from  legis- 
lative meddling,  and  greater  adapta- 
bility to  the  practical  exigencies  of  local 
go^■ernInent.* 

While  there  have  lieen  important 
charter  changes  in  San  Francisco  since 
1856,  there  have  been  no  departures 
from  the  basic  features  of  the  consoli- 
dation act. 


SEP.\It.\TION     AND     SIMPLIFIC.VTIOX 

ST.  LOUIS:     1876 

The  story  of  St.  Louis  differs  from 
any  that  have  preceded.'  Prior  to 
1876  St.  Ixiuis  county  included  the  city 
of  St.  Ivouis  and  an  extensive  rural  area 
lying  outside  of  the  corporate  bound- 
aries of  the  city.  The  rajjid  growth  of 
the  city  resulted  in  many  extensions  of 
its  boundaries  and  a  decided  complica- 
tion   of    the    i)roblems    of    municipal 

•  Anirriran  Political  Science  Review  (8upp.)  Vol.  VI, 
No.  1. 
I  Ibid. 


1922]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        235 


government.  Although  the  area  of  the 
county  still  greatly  exceeded  that  of  the 
city,  the  population  of  the  city  so  enor- 
mously exceeded  that  of  the  rural  parts 
of  the  county  as  to  work  a  profound 
modification  in  the  character  of  city 
and  county  politics.  While  the  county 
vras  a  corporate  entity  exercising  with- 
in the  city  many  purely  municipal 
functions  and  others  vitally  affecting 
municipal  affairs,  the  government  of 
the  county  was  for  the  most  part  con- 
trolled by  rural  jroliticians  whose  chief 
concern  was  to  exploit  the  city  for  the 
benefit  of  themselves  and  the  rural 
parts  of  the  county.  The  result  was 
the  worst  sort  of  misgovernment. 
County  revenues  were  derived  prin- 
cipally from  the  city  and  expended 
mainly  in  the  rural  parts  of  the  county; 
the  salaries  of  county  officers  were 
boosted  to  absurd  figures,  and  offices 
were  multiplied  far  beyond  necessity; 
corruption  became  commonplace. 

At  the  same  time  the  government  of 
the  city  was  in  no  very  healthy  condi- 
tion. The  legislature  had  always  shown 
a  pernicious  disposition  to  meddle  in 
the  affairs  of  the  city,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  city  eventually  fell  into  the 
hands  of  a  gang  of  machine  politicians 
who  had  intrenched  themselves  at 
Jefferson  City  and  who  were  every  bit 
as  vicious  as  the  county  politicians,  if 
not  leagued  with  them.  The  city  of 
St.  Louis  was  obviously  suffering  from 
two  serious  maladies — the  dominance 
of  county  politics  in  municipal  affairs 
and  legislative  intervention  in  local 
matters. 

Home  Rule  Granted  Also 

Simple  consolidation  of  city  and 
county  as  in  San  Francisco  would  not 
do  in  St.  Louis.  The  rural  sections  of 
the  county  could  not  have  been 
brought  under  the  unified  government 
with  any  degree  of  success,  and  prob- 
ably the  mischievous  intervention  of 


the  state  legislature  in  municipal  af- 
fairs would  have  been  aggravated  by 
such  a  course.  Secession  from  the 
county  became  therefore  the  watch- 
word of  the  reform  party  in  St.  Louis. 
Agitation  began  as  early  as  1843  and 
was  carried  on  with  great  energy  dur- 
ing the  decade  immediately  preceding 
the  constitutional  convention  of  1875. 
The  meeting  of  this  constituent  as- 
sembly afforded  a  supreme  opportunity 
to  the  champions  of  city  and  county 
separation.  By  virtue  of  adroit  manoeu- 
vering  they  procured  the  insertion  in 
the  constitutional  draft  of  sections  20 
to  25  inclusive  of  Article  IX.  The 
constitution  was  ratified  by  the  people 
on  August  22,  1876,  and  went  into  ef- 
fect sixty  days  later.  The  most  curi- 
ous and  noteworthy  fact  about  the 
sections  referred  to  above,  is  that  they 
not  only  opened  the  way  for  separation 
of  city  and  county,  but  at  the  same 
time  empowered  the  city  of  St.  Louis  to 
extend  its  boundaries  and  to  "frame  a 
charter  for  the  government  of  the  city 
thus  enlarged."  This  marked  the  be- 
ginning of  municipal  home  rule  in  the 
United  States.  According  to  the  testi- 
mony of  persons  acquainted  with  the 
"inside"  history  of  this  famous  home- 
rule  provision,  it  was  not  a  part  of  the 
original  plan  for  the  separation  of  city 
and  county  and  was  included  only  upon 
the  insistence  of  certain  influential 
German-American  citizens  who  had  in 
mind  creating  for  St.  Louis  a  status 
similar  to  that  enjoyed  by  the  free 
cities  of  Germany — Hamburg,  Liibeck, 
and  Bremen.  It  is  said  also  that  at 
first  the  home-rule  proposal  was  op- 
posed by  city  and  county  alike  and  was 
only  carried  in  the  convention  because 
by  a  separate  section  (section  16  of 
Article  IX)  the  same  privilege  was  ex- 
tended to  all  cities  of  the  state  having  a 
population  of  100,000  and  over. 

The    machinery    provided    for    the 
separation    of    city    and    county    and 


236 


NATIOX.\L  IVIUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


framing   a   new   government   may   be 
summarized    as    follows: 

The  council  of  Ihc  city  and  the  county  court  of 
the  county  were  to  meet  in  joint  session  and  order 
an  election  at  which  was  to  be  chosen  a  board  of 
thirteen  freeholders,  which  board  should  be 
obligated  "to  propose  a  scheme  for  the  enlarge- 
ment and  deSnition  of  the  boundaries  of  the  city, 
the  reorganization  of  the  government  of  the 
county,  the  adjustment  of  the  relations  of  the 
city  thus  enlarged  and  the  residue  of  St.  Louis 
county,  by  a  charter  in  harmony  with  and  sub- 
ject to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  Missouri, 
which  shall  among  other  things  provide  for  a 
chief  executive  and  two  houses  of  legislation,  one 
of  which  shall  be  elected  by  general  ticket.  .  .  . 
It  was  further  provided  that  this  scheme  and 
charter  must  be  completed  and  properly  filed 
with  the  mayor  of  the  city  and  the  presiding 
justice  of  the  county  court  within  ninety  days 
after  the  election  of  the  board.  Within  thirty 
days  thereafter  it  was  to  be  submitted  to  the 
voters  in  the  following  manner:  The  scheme  of 
separation  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  whole  county  and  the  charter  to  the 
qualified  voters  of  the  city  as  enlarged.  If  ap- 
proved by  ft  majority  of  those  voting  at  the  elec- 
tion, the  scheme  of  separation  was  to  become  the 
organic  law  of  the  city  and  county  and  the 
charter  the  organic  law  of  the  enlarged  city,  the 
two  to  be  in  full  force  and  operation  within  si.\ty 
days  after  their  adoption. 

The  machinery  thus  provided  was 
set  in  motion  immediately  after  the  new 
constitution  became  effective.  The 
board  of  freeholders  was  duly  elected 
and  the  scheme  and  charter  ])repared, 
submitted  and  voted  u]Hm  by  the  ])CO- 
ple.  The  certified  returns  showed  that 
the  charter  had  carried  by  a  majority 
of  558  and  that  the  scheme  of  separa- 
tion had  l>een  defeated  by  a  margin  of 
1416.  This  precipitated  a  serious 
sitimtion,  as  it  was  not  dear  that  the 
scheme  and  the  charter  were  ,separal)le. 
However,  there  were  so  manycliarges  of 
fraudulent  registration  and  voting  that 
a]iplicalion  was  made  for  a  judicial 
recount.  The  court  of  ai)|)eals  of  St. 
Louis  conducted  the  recount,  and,  on 
March  5.  1877,  it  declared  that  both 


the  charter  and  the  scheme  of  separa- 
tion had  carried  by  substantial  majori- 
ties. 

No  comprehensive  survey  of  the 
scheme  of  separation  and  the  new 
charter  is  possible  within  the  limits 
prescribed  for  this  article,  but  a  few  of 
the  outstanding  features  may  be  noted. 
The  enlarged  city  of  St.  Louis  was 
completely  divorced  from  the  residue  of 
St.  Louis  county,  which  was  organized 
as  a  county  apart  from  the  city  of  St. 
Louis.  In  the  city  all  of  the  coimty 
oflBccs  except  sheriff,  coroner,  and  pub- 
lic administrator  were  abolished.  So 
far  the  plan  was  simplicity  itself,  but 
when  it  came  to  dividing  public  prop- 
erty, apportioning  public  debts,  and 
such  readjustments,  the  settlement  was 
not  so  easy.  The  intent  of  the  separa- 
tion scheme  was  that  all  public  property 
falling  within  the  limits  of  the  enlarged 
city  should  become  the  property  of  the 
city,  but  that  the  cotmty  should  l)e 
fairly  compensated  for  all  of  its  losses. 
To  this  end  provision  was  made  that 
the  city  shoidd  have  all  county  prop- 
erty of  whatever  character  within  its 
extended  limits,  and  in  consideration 
therefor  should  assume  the  entire 
county  debt  (both  interest  and  princi- 
pal) and  the  ]>ark  debt.  A  Ixiard  of 
finance  was  created  for  the  imrjwse  of 
ascertaining  andverifying  the  indebted- 
ness of  the  coimty  and  certifying  the 
same  to  the  city,  and  for  other  minor 
functions.  The  foregoing  j)rovisions 
did  not  extend  to  school  property,  and 
as  this  settlement  was  very  complicated 
it  will  not  be  discussed  here. 

Expenses  Immediately  Reduced 

The  lieneficial  effects  of  separation 
and  con.solidation  at  St.  Ivouis  have 
never  been  seriously  questioned.  A 
reduction  of  the  cost  of  government 
was  the  most  immediate  and  obvious 
gain.  In  the  first  ycir  following  the 
imificationthetax  ratewas  reduced  Qi}^ 


1922]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        237 


cents  per  $100  despite  the  augmented 
area  of  the  city,  and  a  further  reduction 
of  15  cents  was  effected  in  the  succeed- 
ing year.  At  the  same  time  the 
bonded  indebtedness  was  steadily  low- 
ered, and  a  long-accumulating  floating 
debt  was  paid  off  during  the  first  fiscal 
year  of  the  reorganized  city.  Com- 
menting on  these  facts  one  writer  says : 

It  was  not  until  a  fiscal  year  had  elapsed  after 
the  city  government  had  been  recast  and  re- 
organized under  the  charter  and  separation 
scheme  that  a  fair  opportunity  was  presented  of 
summarizing  and  examining  the  results  of  the 
new  system.  This  opportunity  presented  itself 
at  the  May  session  of  1878,  when  the  mayor 
stated  that  the  immediate  results  had  been  re- 
duction in  taxation  and  in  the  expenses  of  de- 
partments, and  an  improved  system  of  public 
institutions.  .  .  .  The  municipal  affairs  of 
the  city  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  in  June,  1879, 
were  prosperous  and  satisfactory  to  no  ordinary 
degree.  The  penal  and  charitable  institutions 
were  in  excellent  order  and  economically  man- 
aged; the  fiscal  and  improvement  departments 
were  conducted  with  integrity  and  energy,  and 
at  no  period  in  the  history  of  the  city  had  its 
credit  been  better  or  had  a  more  practical  and 
efficient  system  controlled  the  expenditure  of  the 
city  revenue,  the  management  of  the  city  debt, 
and  the  operations  on  public  works.' 

The  separation  of  the  city  from  the 
county  and  the  simplification  of  the 
consolidated  government  did  not  of 
course  mark  the  advent  of  the  millen- 
nium, and  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 
reform  enthusiasm  of  the  new  adminis- 
tration overmatched  that  of  its  succes- 
sors. Certainly  there  have  been  some 
sordid  pages  in  the  history  of  St.  Louis 
since  1876.  Nevertheless  it  will  not  be 
denied  that  the  unity  achieved  under 
the  scheme  of  1876  has  been  a  potent 
factor  in  the  upbuilding  of  St.  Louis 
and  in  promoting  better  government. 
The  plan  of  1876  was  seriously  defec- 
tive in  one  particular;  namely,  failure 
to  provide  for  futtu-e  extensions  of  the 

8  Scharf,  History  of  St.  Louis  City  and  County,  Vol.  I, 
pp. 712-713. 


boundaries  of  the  city.  The  city  soon 
outgrew  its  extended  boimdaries,  and 
is  now  confronted  with  an  embarrass- 
ing annexation  problem.  Although 
the  charter  of  1876  was  much  modified 
%\ith  the  passing  of  the  years  and  in 
1914  was  completely  set  aside,  it  has 
not  been  possible  to  secure  the  further 
enlargement  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
city. 

FORMATION    OF    GREATER    NEW    YORK: 
1898 

Doubtless  the  most  noted  case  of 
mtmicipal  consolidation  in  this  country 
is  the  fashioning  of  the  present  city  of 
Greater  New  York  out  of  the  metro- 
politan district  formerly  composed  of 
New  York  (Manhattan),  Brooklyn, 
Richmond  county,  and  portions  of 
Kings,  Queens,  and  Westchester  coun- 
ties.' On  December  1,  1897,  just  prior 
to  the  consolidation,  the  population  of 
this  metropolitan  area  was  estimated  at 
more  than  3,000,000.  This  vast  popu- 
lation was  for  all  practical  purposes  an 
organic  unit.  The  center  of  industrial, 
commercial,  and  social  life  was  on  the 
island  of  Manhattan,  while  the  other 
communities  were  for  the  most  part 
economic  satellites  of  this  great  center. 
Politically,  however,  the  metropolitan 
population  was  not  one  body,  but  up- 
ward of  forty.  Chaos  reigned  supreme. 
Cities,  counties,  villages,  school  dis- 
tricts, detached  boards,  and  quasi- 
independent  officers  contracted  debts, 
enacted  local  legislation,  and  carried  on 
the  administrative  operations  of  local 
government  without  any  co-ordination 
or  co-operation.  The  effect  was  calam- 
itous. Not  only  was  the  natural 
evolution  of  the  metropolitan  area  re- 
tarded because  of  the  difficulty  of 
securing  united  action  on  the  great 

•  Leslie,  History  of  Greater  Ifew  York,  Vol.  I,  Chap. 
19:  also  Henachel,  Historical  Sketch  of  Greater  New 
York,  passim. 


238 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


problems  of  transportation,  sanitation, 
city  planning,  housing,  public  safety, 
and  tlie  like,  which  were  basic  determi- 
native factors  in  growth,  but  the  finan- 
cial situation,  except  in  the  case  of  New 
York,  was  desperate.  Brooklyn  was 
bonded  u()  to  the  constitutional  limit 
and  indebted  in  excess  of  that  limit. 
The  as.sessed  valuation  of  property  in 
Brooklyn  was  high,  and  .so  was  the  tax 
rate.  Analagous  conditions  prevailed 
in  the  other  suburbs,  except  that  the 
pinch  of  high  taxation  was  i)erhaps  not 
quite  so  acute  as  in  Brooklyn.  New 
York  was  fortunate  in  having  a  com- 
paratively low  assessed  valuation  and 
tax  rate  and  in  having  its  debt-incur- 
ring power  practically  unimpaired.  In 
fact  it  was  asserted  in  189:5  by  Mayor 
Gilroy  of  New  York  that  by  lifting  her 
assessed  valuation  New  York  would  be 
able  to  incur  sufficient  indebtedness  to 
buy  Brooklyn  outright.  It  is  plain 
therefore  that  union  with  New  York 
was  not  without  a  balm  for  the  wounded 
local  pride  of  the  communities  which 
submerged  themselves  in  Greater  New 
York. 

The  New  York  History 

The  history  of  the  New  York  con- 
solidation has  been  so  often  and  .so  fully 
told  that  it  will  not  be  re|)eatcd  here. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  after  a  campaign 
whose  beginnings  can  be  traced  back  as 
far  as  18.S0,  the  legislature  of  the  state 
of  New  York  in  1894  passed  a  measure 
providing  for  a  vote  on  the  question  of 
con.solidation  by  the  citizens  of  the 
districts  concerned.  The  vote  was 
taken  on  Novenil)er  fi,  1894.  The 
most  interesting  feature  of  this  election 
was  that  the  vote  was  advisory  only 
and  in  reality  .settled  nothing.  This 
resultc<l  from  the  construction  placed 
upon  the  measure  liy  the  Icgi.slature  at 
the  time  of  enactment  and  from  the  in- 
struct ions  given  to  the  voters.  Wiether 
this  had  any  effect  in  jjrocuring  a  vote 


favorable  to  consolidation  it  is  im- 
possible to  say,  but  the  total  majority 
for  con.solidation  was  surprisingly  large. 
Despite  the  fact  that  Brooklyn,  Flu.sh- 
ing,  and  Mt.  Vernon  returned  small 
majorities  adverse  to  consolidation, 
these  majorities  were  wiped  out  by  the 
decisive  pro-consolidation  vote  cast  in 
the  other  districts  voting.  The  case 
of  Mt.  \'ernon  was  unique.  It  had  not 
been  included  in  the  districts  originally 
authorized  to  vote  on  the  question  but 
was  added  by  virtue  of  a  special  act  of 
the  legislature  passed  at  the  instance  of 
a  few  of  its  citizens.  Wien  it  voted 
against  consolidation,  it  was  decided 
that  there  was  no  authority  to  include 
it  in  the  ultimate  consolidation. 

Pursuant  to  the  favorable  vote  on 
the  consolidation  question,  steps  were 
taken  to  procure  legislation  to  put  it 
into  effect.  However,  the  manceuver- 
ing  of  the  opponents  of  con.solidation 
forestalled  this  consummation  until 
May  11,  1896.  when  the  act  effectuat- 
ing consolidation  was  finally  signed  by 
the  governor.  Only  a  few  provisions 
of  this  act  demand  attention  here.  It 
set  the  date  (January  1,  1898)  when  the 
consolidation  .should  become  effective 
and  provided  for  the  creation  of  a 
charter  commission  to  draft  a  charter 
for  the  greater  city.  The  only  restric- 
tions laid  upon  the  charter  commi.ssion 
were  that  county  government  should 
not  be  included  in  the  con.solidation, 
and  that  it  should  provide  for  an  equal 
and  uniform  rate  of  valuation  and  tax- 
ation throughout  the  consolidated  area. 

The  rian  Very  Complex 

The  charter  of  Greater  New  York  as 
formulated  by  the  charter  commi.ssion 
is  entirely  too  complex  for  brief  analy- 
sis. Probably  the  feature  of  most 
interest  to  the  student  of  nnmicii)al 
unification  is  the  system  of  borough 
organization  and  autonomy.  The  jier- 
sistence  of  strong  local  feeling  in  the 


19^2-2]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES 


239 


several  component  parts  of  the  greater 
city  made  it  seem  inadvisable  to  insti- 
tute a  thoroughly  centralized  plan  of 
government.  Accordingly  the  metro- 
politan area  was  organized  into  five 
boroughs,  as  follows:  the  borough  of 
Manhattan,  consisting  of  Manhattan 
Island;  the  borough  of  Bronx, composed 
of  that  portion  of  the  former  city  of 
New  York  lying  north  of  the  Harlem 
River  plus  the  sections  of  Westchester 
county  recently  annexed;  the  borough 
of  Brooklyn,  which  included  the  former 
city  of  Brooklyn  and  certain  portions 
of  Kings  county ;  the  borough  of  Queens 
which  embraced  the  western  portion  of 
Queens  county;  and  the  borough  of 
Richmond,  consisting  of  the  whole  of 
Staten  Island.  Each  of  these  boroughs 
elects  a  president  who  is  administrative 
head  of  the  borough  and  responsible  for 
the  discharge  of  those  governmental 
functions  reserved  to  the  boroughs  by 
the  charter.  These  functions  are  con- 
fined mainly  to  local  improvements, 
such  as  construction  of  sewers,  sew- 
age disposal,  construction  and  main- 
tenance of  public  highways,  and  the 
maintenance  and  operation  of  public 
buildings.  The  five  borough  presidents, 
together  with  the  mayor,  the  comptrol- 
ler, and  the  president  of  the  board  of 
aldermen,  constitute  the  board  of  esti- 
mate and  apportionment,  which  through 
its  financial  initiative  and  control  has 
evolved  into  the  principal  governing 
body  of  the  city.  The  members  of  the 
board  of  estimate  and  apportionment 
do  not  have  equal  voting  power,  the 
votes  being  so  distributed  that  those 
who  represent  the  city  as  a  whole  can 
outvote  those  who  represent  the  bor- 
oughs. The  distribution  is  as  follows: 
the  mayor,  the  comptroller,  and  the 
president  of  the  board  of  aldermen  cast 
three  votes  each;  the  presidents  of  the 
boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn, 
two  each;  and  the  presidents  of  the 
boroughs  of  Bronx,  Queens,  and  Rich- 


mond, one  each.  To  reinforce  still 
more  the  control  of  those  who  represent 
the  city  at  large,  it  is  provided  that  a 
quorum  of  the  board  shall  consist  of  a 
sufficient  number  of  members  to  cast 
nine  votes,  including  always  two  who 
cast  three  votes  each. 

The  most  conspicuous  shortcoming 
of  the  unification  was  the  exclusion  of 
the  counties.  In  the  years  prior  to 
consolidation  there  had  been  a  gradual 
trimming  of  the  functions  of  the  coun- 
ties of  New  York  and  Kings  until  they 
became  little  more  than  districts  for 
the  administration  of  justice  and  for  the 
elec^:ion  of  certain  indispensable  con- 
stitutional county  officers.  At  the 
time  of  the  consolidation  the  counties 
of  Queens  and  Richmond  were  re- 
duced to  a  similar  status.  That  these 
counties  as  entities  of  local  govern- 
ment were  retained  largely  because  of 
the  political  patronage  they  provide  is 
generally  conceded,  and  certainly  this 
was  the  motive  behind  the  creation  of 
Bronx  county  in  1914.  The  next  step 
toward  the  complete  unification  of 
Greater  New  York  will  be  the  elimina- 
tion of  the  five  counties. 

Physical  Integration  Followed 

Of  the  after-effects  of  the  consolida- 
tion we  must  perforce  speak  very  brief- 
ly. In  the  realm  of  finance  the  ex- 
perience of  the  greater  city  was 
complex  and  puzzling.'"  It  finished  its 
first  year  with  a  deficit  of  over  $7,000,- 
000.  The  financial  morass  into  which 
BrookljTi  in  particular  had  sunk,  and 
the  necessity  of  greatly  extended 
go\'ernmental  services  and  public  im- 
provements in  the  outlying  districts, 
placed  the  new  government  in  a  very 
trying  position.  In  the  realm  of 
economic  and  social  development  the 
story  of  the  greater  city  since  consolida- 
tion is  simply  fabulous.     The  political 

wCoIer,     The    Financial     Effects    of    Consolidation, 


240 


NATIONAL  MUNICirAL  REVIEW 


[August 


integration  of  the  various  districts  in 
the  metropolitan  area  soon  resulted  in 
physical  integration  through  the  con- 
struction of  bridges,  tunnels,  rapid- 
transit  systems,  and  water-supply  sys- 
tems. With  physical  integration  came 
that  marvelous  development  of  the 
outlying  boroughs  which  has  so  as- 
tonished the  world  and  which  has 
brought  the  jxjpulation  of  Brooklj-n  up 
to  2,00>2,'-262,  that  of  the  Bronx  to 
732,016.  that  of  Queens  to  466,811, 
and  that  of  Richmond  to  115,959. 
That  this  basic  unity  of  the  metropoli- 
tan district  has  Ijeen  one  of  the  most 
potent  factors  in  fostering  the  commer- 
cial and  industrial  development  which 
has  made  New  York  the  first  city  of 
the  world  scarcelv  needs  to  be  said. 


separ.\tion'    axd    coxsolidatiox 
den\er:  1902-1911 

The  history  of  the  unification  of  local 
government  in  Denver  is  rich  in  inci- 
dent. Prior  to  the  unification  Denver 
was  the  county  seat  of  Arapahoe 
county,  which  was  of  enormous  area 
and  sparsely  populated  except  for  the 
citj'  of  Denver.  There  was  very  little 
community  of  interest  between  the 
rural  sections  of  the  county  and  the 
city,  and  tliis  conflict  of  interests 
reacted  upon  Denver  and  its  govern- 
ment in  a  most  unhappy  way.  The 
structure  of  the  city  government  was 
itself  seriously  defective,  lieing  the 
loose-jointed  board-council-niayor  tyjie 
so  i)opular  in  this  country  three  or  four 
decades  ago.  The  legislature  of  tiie 
state  was  given  to  pernicious  meddling 
in  municipal  affairs,  and  in  the  two  all- 
imjrortant  functions  of  public  safety 
and  public  works  it  had  superseded  the 
city  authorities  with  state  boards. 
Contending  public  utility  corporations 
were  at  the  same  time  fighting  desi)er- 
ately  for  monopolistic  dominion  of  the 
city.     Here  was  an   unsuri)assed  op- 


portunity for  the  operations  of  preda- 
tory jx)litical  machines,  and  the  op- 
portunity was  not  overlooked;  Denver 
l)ecame  notorious  for  the  corruption 
and  turbulence  of  her  local  politics." 

Several  states  following  the  example 
of  Missouri  had  incorjxjrated  in  their 
constitutions  provisions  for  municipal 
home  rule,  and,  observing  these  de- 
velopments, reform  leaders  in  Denver 
turned  to  home  rule  as  the  only  escape 
from  the  intolerable  political  conditions 
prevailing  in  their  city.  Separation  of 
city  and  county  and  simplification  of 
the  government  of  the  city  were  second- 
arj-  considerations  to  them;  the  para- 
mount issue  was  home  rule.  A  move- 
ment for  home  rule  for  Denver  was 
started  in  the  state  legislature  in  1899, 
but  nothing  came  of  it.  In  1901 
Senator  J.  A.  Rush  introduced  a  bill 
submitting  to  the  electorate  of  the  state 
a  home-rule  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution. The  projxised  amendment  was 
not  confined  to  Denver  alone,  but  ap- 
plied to  all  cities  of  the  first  and  second 
class,  thus  enlisting  valuable  aid  in 
securing  its  passage  by  the  legislature 
and  its  eventual  triumph  at  the  polls. 
It  was  submitted  to  the  people  and 
overwhelmingly  ratified  at  the  general 
election  in  190-2. 

At  this  juncture  the  history  of  the 
now  famous  article  XX  of  the  Colorado 
constitution  really  begins.  The  first 
section  of  the  amendment  declared  that 
"The  municipal  corporation  known  as 
the  city  of  Denver,  and  all  municipal 
corjKirations  and  that  part  of  the  quasi- 
municipal  corporation  known  as  the 
county  of  Arapahoe,  in  the  state  of 
Colorado,  included  ■nHthin  the  bound- 
aries of  the  said  city  of  Denver  as  the 
same  shall  be  bounded  when  this 
amendment  takes  effect,  are  herebycon- 
solidated  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be 
a  single  body  politic  and  corporate,  by 

II  Sec  King,  Hi*tory  of  the  Goremmmt  of  Dmt<r, 
Chapa.  V  and  VI. 


1922]      THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        241 


the  name  of  the  'City  and  County  of 
Denver.'"  The  implication  was  that 
the  boundaries  of  the  city  were  to  be 
considerably  extended  prior  to  the  tak- 
ing effect  of  the  amendment,  and  so  it 
came  to  pass.  Legislation  was  secured 
enlarging  the  area  of  the  city  by  specif- 
ically annexing  certain  contiguous 
territory.  In  this  way  several  former 
suburban  towns  whose  aggregate  popu- 
lation was  about  6,000  were  added  to 
the  city,  together  with  a  considerable 
amount  of  unsettled  territory. 

First  Charter  Defeated 

Pursuant  to  the  amendment,  a 
charter  convention  was  elected  to  frame 
a  new  charter  for  the  new  corporation. 
A  very  commendable  charter  was  pre- 
pared, but  it  so  greatly  reduced  the 
possible  spoils  of  party  warfare  by  the 
introduction  of  the  short-ballot  prin- 
ciple that  it  aroused  the  hostility  of  the 
machine  organizations  of  both  parties. 
Furthermore  it  contained  a  provision 
looking  toward  more  stringent  regula- 
tion of  public  utilities,  and  thus  earned 
the  opposition  of  the  corporate  interest. 
These  hostile  forces  in  league  were  able 
to  send  the  charter  to  defeat  at  the  polls 
on  September  22,  1903.  A  second 
charter  convention  became  necessary 
and  was  assembled  on  December  8, 
1903.  The  draft  prepared  by  the 
second  charter  convention  omitted 
the  provisions  which  were  unacceptable 
to  the  politicians  and  the  corporations, 
and  consequently  it  was  easily  ratified 
on  March  29,  1904.  At  the  first  elec- 
tion under  the  new  instrument,  held  in 
May,  1904,  city  and  coimty  offices  were 
merged  without  question.  But  when 
the  fall  campaign  of  1904  came  around 
the  question  of  whether  a  full  set  of 
county  officers  could  be  nominated  was 
raised  and  finally  taken  to  the  courts. 
It  is  quite  unnecessary  here  to  enter 
into  the  technicalities  of  the  extended 
litigation    which    ensued    and    which 


practically  suspended  until  1911  the 
real  consolidation  of  city  and  county 
governments.'^  In  the  j-ear  last 
named  the  supreme  court  of  the  state 
terminated  this  legal  controversy  by  a 
sweeping  opinion  quite  the  reverse  of 
its  former  pronouncements.  A  third 
charter  convention  met  in  1913  and 
proposed  amendments  to  the  charter 
of  1904,  which,  when  approved  by  the 
voters,  put  the  commission  plan  of  gov- 
ernment into  effect.  After  three  years 
this  was  abandoned  by  the  adoption  of 
the  so-called  "Speer  Amendment, " 
which  provided  for  a  highly  centralized 
administration  under  an  elected  mayor. 

Economy  Plus  Efficiency 

Because  of  the  tempestuous  history 
of  the  consolidation  of  local  govern- 
ments in  Denver,  the  results  are  hard 
to  measure.  Probably  the  most  ob- 
vious is  economy.  The  financial  re- 
ports of  the  city  and  county  show  that 
in  1911  (the  last  year  that  a  complete 
set  of  officers  for  both  city  and  county 
was  maintained)  the  total  cost  of  local 
government  was  $679,400,  while  in 
1917  with  simplification  and  consolida- 
tion in  effect  it  was  $476,600,  and  this 
despite  a  sharp  rise  in  price  levels  in 
the  meantime.  It  is  also  the  well-nigh 
unanimous  testimony  of  those  asso- 
ciated with  the  consolidated  govern- 
ment that  this  startling  economy  has 
been  accompanied  by  increased  efli- 
ciency. 


UNION  OF  ALLEGHENY  WITH  PITTS- 
BURGH:    1906-1908 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  union 
of  Pittsburgh  and  Allegheny  was  a 
Sabine  marriage  in  which  Pittsburgh 
assumed  the  role  of  the  abducting  Ro- 
man, and  there  are  facts  to  support 
such  a  contention.     However,  if  there 

11  For  a  full  discussion  see  McBain,  The  Law  and 
Practice  of  Municipal  Home  Rule,  pp.  498-531. 


242 


NATIONAL  MUNICIP.\L  REVIEW 


[August 


was  ever  a  case  vindicating  the  casuistic 
argument  tliat  the  end  justifies  the 
means,  this  was  one.  Prior  to  the  an- 
nexa  t  ion ,  t  he  ci  t  y  of  Pi  1 1  sburgh  occupied 
a  tongue  of  land  formed  l)y  the  con- 
fluenc-e  of  the  Allegheny  and  Monon- 
gahela  rivers.  Tiie  population  of  Pitts- 
burgh at  that  time  was  estimated  at 
383,000.  Across  tlie  .Vllegheny  river 
on  a  similar  tongue  of  land  was  the  city 
of  Allegheny  with  an  estimated  popu- 
lation of  14"2,000;  across  the  Mononga- 
hela  river  were  four  incorporated  bor- 
oughs whose  combined  population  was 
about  8,000;  and  to  the  rear  of  Pitts- 
burgh was  the  small  townsliip  of  Stcr- 
rett  with  a  population  of  600  to  1.000. 
The.se  contiguous  and  clustering  com- 
munities were  in  matters  industrial, 
commercial  and  social,  integral  parts  of 
the  city  of  Pittsburgh,  and  with  it  they 
constituted  one  homogeneous  metro- 
politan district.  Pittsburgh  was  the 
center  of  commerce  and  industry,  while 
the  outlying  communities  were  cither 
economic  tributaries  or  residential 
suburbs.  With  the  nuiltiplication  of 
bridges  and  the  i>erfcction  of  trolley 
systems  tiiis  clo.se  inter-relationship  was 
greatly  heightened." 

A  Social  Unit  Politically  Subdiridcd 

On  the  political  side,  however,  this 
metropolitan  community  was  broken 
into  many  and  discordant  parts. 
Manyof  the  leading  figures  in  the  affairs 
of  Pittsburgh  resided  in  the  outlying 
communities  and  con.scqucntly  had  no 
share  in  the  government  of  Pittsburgh. 
The  effect  of  this  ab.senteeism  was  to 
set  the  stage  for  the  ring  [)oliticians, 
who  for  many  years  ])laycd  fast  and 
loose  with  the  affairs  of  the  city.  Plans 
for  improving  the  industrial  and  com- 
mercial position  of  the  city  always  had 
to  run  the  gauntlet  of  factional  oppo- 
sition and  often  were  entirely  thwarted 
by  the  degraded  city  administration. 

u  Killikrlly,  llUloru  of  I'Mtburi/h,  pp.  241-244. 


Interests  which  proximity  made  com- 
mon to  all  communities  in  the  metropol- 
itan area  could  not  bc])romotcd  in  com- 
mon; and  in  the  case  of  sewage  disposal 
and  water  supply  the  lack  of  harmony 
among  the  various  municii)alities 
threatened  to  defeat  large  civic  i)roj- 
ects  and  to  imperil  the  health  of  the 
inhabitants  of  all.  There  was  intense 
jealousy  in  the  allocation  of  thefinancial 
burden  of  public  improvements.  Pitts- 
burgh resented  carrying  the  cost  of 
public  improvements  which  accrued 
largely  to  the  benefit  of  the  surrounding 
communities,  while  the  latter  were  in- 
capable of  footing  the  bills  for  the  ex- 
tensi\e  improvements  and  services 
which  their  metropolitan  situation 
made  necessary. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing 
facts  it  is  not  surprising  that  public- 
minded  citizens  early  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  the  only  hoi>e  of  permanent 
amelioration  of  conditions  lay  in  the 
political  unification  of  the  metropolitan 
area,  and  esi)ccially  in  the  union  of 
Pittsburgh  and  .\llegheny.  For  many 
years,  beginning  as  far  back  as  18.54, 
this  question  was  an  i.ssue  in  the 
Pennsylvania  legislature;  but  nothing 
was  accomplished  in  the  way  of  assist- 
ing legislation  until  1!)0,5  when  the 
governor,  largely  at  the  instance  of 
commercial  and  civic  organizations  in 
Pittsburgh,  summoned  the  legislature 
in  special  session  to  enact  a  law  |)er- 
mitting  cities  contiguous  to  one  another 
to  consolidate  and  form  one  city. 
Special  legislation  for  cities  being  for- 
bidilen  by  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  legislature  was  unable  to  enact  a 
law  designating  Pittsburgh  and  .\lle- 
gheny  and  em|)owering  them  to  unite, 
but  resorted  to  the  subterfuge  which 
the  courts  in  most  states  have  tolerated, 
and  on  Fel)ruary  7,  1906,  pa.s.sed  an  en- 
abling act  applicable  to  all  cities  of  the 
.second  class,  Pittsburgh  and  .VUegheny 
being  the  only  cities  in  that  class. 


1922]      THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        243 


Compulsory  Annexation 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  act 
of  1906  was  passed  to  enable  Pitts- 
burgh to  absorb  Allegheny  without  her 
consent.  Otherwise  the  act  need  not 
have  been  passed,  for  pre-existing 
statutes  authorized  one  city  to  annex 
another  upon  the  initiative  of  and  with 
the  approval  of  the  voters  of  the  city 
to  be  annexed.  The  act  of  1906,  how- 
ever, provided  specifically  that  the 
consolidation  should  come  about  only 
by  the  annexation  of  the  smaller  by  the 
larger  city;  that  the  initiative  might  be 
taken  by  the  common  council  or  by  peti- 
tion signed  by  two  per  cent  of  the 
voters  of  either  city;  and  that  if  a 
majority  of  the  total  vote  cast  in  both 
cities  should  be  in  favor  of  consolida- 
tion, the  courtof  quarter  sessions  should 
issue  a  decree  declaring  them  to  be 
consolidated.  Thus  it  was  made  pos- 
sible for  Pittsburgh  to  take  the  initia- 
tive away  from  Allegheny  and  to  out- 
vote her  at  the  election;  and  precisely 
that  thing  happened.  Pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act  a  petition  was 
filed  with  the  court  of  quarter  sessions 
of  Allegheny  county  by  certain  citizens 
of  Pittsburgh  praying  for  the  union  of 
Pittsburgh  and  Allegheny;  the  court 
conducted  a  hearing  as  required  by  the 
act,  dismissed  the  exceptions  which  had 
been  filed  against  the  petition,  and 
ordered  a  special  election  to  be  held  in 
June,  1906.  The  vote  of  Allegheny 
was  against  consolidation,  but  that  of 
Pittsburgh  was  so  preponderantly  for 
it  that  out  of  a  total  of  37,804  votes  cast 
there  was  a  majority  of  2,504  for  con- 
solidation. Accordingly  on  June  16, 
1906,  the  decree  of  the  court  went  forth 
declaring  Allegheny  to  be  annexed  to 
and  consolidated  with  Pittsburgh. 
Allegheny  contested  the  legality  of 
these  proceedings  and  carried  the  case 
through  all  the  courts  of  the  state  and 
finally  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United    States,     which    on    Novem- 


ber 18,  1907,  handed  down  an  opinion 
to  the  effect  that  nothing  in  the  act  of 
1906  and  the  procedure  of  annexation 
thereunder  was  in  conflict  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.'^ 

The  annexation  of  Allegheny  did  not 
involve  the  other  suburban  boroughs 
and  townships  mentioned  above,  but 
they  were  joined  to  Pittsburgh  at 
about  the  same  time  imder  the  provi- 
sions of  the  general  laws  on  the  subject 
of  annexation  of  contiguous  munici- 
palities. 

The  Actual  Process  of  Consolidation 

A  detailed  analysis  of  the  act  of 
February  7,  1906,  is  impossible  in  the 
limited  space  available  here.  Some  of 
the  leading  provisions  have  already 
been  noted,  and  a  few  others  which 
were  to  apply  only  in  the  event  of  an 
election  in  favor  of  consolidation  will 
be  briefly  mentioned.  There  was  a 
group  of  provisions  having  to  do  with 
the  settlement  of  the  financial  and 
proprietary  problems  resulting  from 
consolidation.  It  was  provided,  for 
example  that  each  of  the  consolidating 
cities  should  be  liable  separately  to  pay 
its  own  floating  and  bonded  indebted- 
ness, liabilities,  and  interest,  such  as 
existed  at  the  time  of  the  consolidation; 
and  adequate  administrative  machinery 
was  created  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
rule.  Another  group  of  provisions  had 
to  do  with  the  manner  in  which  the 
governments  of  the  two  cities  should  be 
merged.  The  consolidation  did  not 
ipso  facto  deprive  any  officer  of  either  of 
the  two  cities  of  his  office  or  salary  until 
the  expiration  of  his  term,  but  in  this 
interim  and  until  a  system  of  govern- 
ment for  the  greater  city  could  be 
organized,  a  temporary  government 
was  to  be  operative.  The  main  fea- 
tures of  this  scheme  were  that  the  coun- 
cils of  the  two  cities  were  to  be  merged 
and  meet  as  one  body;  that  the  mayor 

"  Hunter  vs.  Pittsburgh.  207  U.  S.  161. 


244 


XATION.\L  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


of  the  larger  city  was  to  become  the 
mayor  of  the  greater  city  and  the 
mayor  of  tlie  smaller  city  the  deputy 
maj'or;  that  every  ordinance  pertaining 
exclusively  to  the  smaller  city  had  to  be 
presented  to  the  deputy  mayor  for  his 
approval;  that  the  executive  depart- 
ments were  consolidated,  the  depart- 
ment cliicf  of  the  larger  city  liccoming 
the  head  of  the  department  and  the  de- 
partment chief  of  the  smaller  city  be- 
coming the  first  assistant.  The  consol- 
idation did  not  distiu-i)  the  status  of  the 
school  districts  in  either  city;  nor  did 
it  affect  the  status  of  the  county 
government. 

Improved  Transportation  and  Taxation 

The  political  integration  of  the 
metropolitan  area  of  greater  Pittsburgh 
brought  some  immediately  beneficial 
results  and  many  that  were  more 
remote.  One  of  the  quick  results  was 
the  vast  imi)rovement  of  transportation 
connections  between  various  portions 
of  the  metropolitan  district  by  the 
abolition  of  bridge  tolls  and  the  intro- 
duction of  a  uniform  street  car  fare  and 
a  system  of  universal  transfers.  An- 
other was  the  complete  revision  of  the 
formerly  inequitable  system  of  ta.\a- 
tion.  A  third  was  the  development  of 
an  adequate  water  supi)ly  system  for 
the  entire  metropolitan  area,  rejilacing 
the  contaminated  water  su])plied  by 
the  formerly  independent  units.  More 
remote  benefits  that  are  traceable  to 
the  awakened  civic  consciousness  fol- 
lowing consolidation  are  the  inaugura- 
tion of  a  city  i)!an,  enormous  extensions 
of  |)a\ing  and  street  imi)rovements,  a 
reorganization  of  the  school  system,  the 
building  of  playgrounds,  markets,  and 
a  tuberculosis  hospital. 

WHEELING    ABSORBS    HER    SUBfRBS: 
1940 

Quite  the  latest  achievement  in 
municipal  integration  is  the  successful 


culmination  of  the  annexation  move- 
ment at  ^Mieeling,  West  Virginia.  The 
campaign  was  in  charge  of  a  represent- 
ative committee  of  citizens  known  as 
the  Greater  Wieeling  Conunittcc,  and 
the  chamber  of  commerce  was  probably 
the  most  active  civic  agency  in  the 
movement. 

A  special  act  had  to  be  secured  from 
the  state  legislature  to  permit  the 
question  of  annexation  to  l>e  submitted 
simultaneously  to  the  electorate  of 
lx)th  ^Mieeling  and  the  suburbs.  The 
election,  which  occurred  on  Novem- 
ber '2G,  1919,  resulted  in  favor  of  uni- 
fication to  become  effective  January 
1,  19'20.  A  suburban  population  of 
about  40,000  was  thus  added  to  the 
city  of  Wieeling. 

Interesting  features  of  the  Wheeling 
campaign  were  the  adoption  of  the 
commission-manager  plan  by  Wheeling 
in  1917  largely  to  meet  the  objections 
of  the  suburbs  to  unification  under  the 
old  i)Ian  of  government;  jjrovision  for 
the  election  of  the  members  of  the 
council  of  the  new  government  on  a 
general  ticket,  so  that  the  annexed 
subiubs  could  participate  in  the  choice 
of  every  member  of  the  council;  and 
the  development  of  a  comj)rehensive 
plan  of  public  works,  which  could  not 
be  effectually  carried  out  under  the 
divided  jurisdiction  of  nine  distinct 
governmental  units.  These,  reinforced 
by  a  strong  ai)peal  to  conununity  pride 
and  patriotism,  did  a  great  deal  to 
convince  the  suburbs  of  the  advisabil- 
ity of  consolidation. 

THE    C.\SE    OF    W.\SHINGTON,    D.    C. 

Perhaps  Washington  ought  to  be 
tnentioncd  as  one  of  the  cities  that 
have  achieved  juililical  unity,  although 
it  stands  in  a  class  by  itself.  Prior  to 
184(i  the  District  of  Columbia  con- 
tained two  counties  and  three  cities. 
By  the  retrocession  to  Virginia  of  that 


1922]      THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        245 


portion  of  the  District  lying  west  of  the 
Potomac  the  nimiber  was  reduced  to 
one  county  and  two  cities.  In  1871 
Congress  reorganized  the  government 


of  the  District  by  abolishing  the  sepa- 
rate coimty  and  city  governments,  and 
since  that  time  they  have  had  no 
separate  existence. 


III.     WHAT   REMAINS   TO   BE   ACCOMPLISHED 


THE  GREATER  BOSTON  MOVEMENT 

The  federal  census  of  1920  gives 
Boston  a  population  of  748,060  and 
ranks  Boston  as  the  seventh  city  of  the 
United  States,  but  Boston  newspapers 
and  civic  organizations  insist  that  the 
true  magnitude  and  importance  of 
their  city  are  not  indicated  by  the 
census  figures.  It  is  pointed  out  that 
outsideof  the  corporate  limits  of  Boston 
but  within  a  radius  of  fifteen  miles  of 
the  state  house  in  Boston  there  dwells 
a  further  population  of  over  700,000; 
and  it  is  contended  that  Boston  proper 
is  but  the  torso  of  a  great  metropolitan 
community  of  about  1,500,000  inhabi- 
tants constituting  an  organic  entity  in 
all  respects  except  political  organiza- 
tion. At  present  this  vast  community 
is  a  morass  of  co-existent,  overlapping, 
conflicting,  and  competing  units  of 
local  government,  there  being  in  all 
fourteen  cities,  twenty-six  towns,  five 
counties,  and  five  state  boards  or 
agencies  functioning  within  the  metro- 
politan area. 

What  this  condition  means  is  well  set 
forth  in  "An  Appeal  for  the  Federation 
of  the  Metropolitan  Cities  and  Towns," 
issued  in  1919  by  Mayor  Peters  of 
Boston.  In  urging  the  political  unifica- 
tion of  the  metropolitan  district  Mayor 
Peters  incidentally  points  out  that  the 
absence  of  political  unity  has  had  the 
following  results:  (1)  It  has  rendered 
the  metropolitan  community  incapable 
of  co-operating  efi'ectively  to  secure 
freight  rates  favorable  to  the  upbuild- 
ing of  export  trade  and  the  establish- 
ment of  regular  steamship  service  with 


foreign  ports;  (2)  it  has  been  one  of  the 
major  causes  of  the  failure  of  the 
metropolitan  community  to  provide 
terminal  facilities  conducive  to  ship- 
ping and  trade;  (3)  it  is  responsible  for 
the  failure  of  the  metropolitan  district 
to  develop  adequate  factory  sites  be- 
cause of  inability  to  provide  street  con- 
nections and  housing  facilities;  (4) 
it  is  responsible  for  the  decline  of  real 
estate  values  in  many  sections  of  Bos- 
ton owing  to  the  want  of  intelligent 
control  of  suburban  developments;  (5) 
it  is  responsible  for  Boston's  falling 
under  the  domination  of  political  or- 
ganizations whose  strength  lies  in 
control  of  the  votes  of  the  foreign  popu- 
lation; (6)  it  is  to  blame  for  the  failure 
to  provide  for  police  and  fire  protection 
and  for  street  improvements  on  a 
metropolitan  basis;  (7)  it  has  prevented 
the  enactment  of  uniform  health  and 
housing  laws  which  would  relieve  con- 
gestion in  Boston  and  promote  the 
growth  of  the  less  densely  populated 
suburbs;  (8)  it  has  unduly  inflated  the 
cost  of  local  government  owing  to 
duplication  of  services  and  overhead 
organization. 

The  question  of  merging  the  govern- 
mental agencies  of  the  metropolitan 
area  has  been  under  discussion  in 
Boston  for  many  years.  In  1896  a 
special  commission  was  appointed  by 
the  legislature  to  study  the  problem  of 
municipal  administration  in  Boston 
and  the  adjoining  municipalities,  and 
it  prepared  a  report  recommending  the 
federation  of  the  various  towns  and 
cities  as  a  single  county  which  should 
have  the  functions  of  a  municipal  cor- 


246 


NATIONAL  MUNICIP-\L  REVIEW 


[August 


poration.  In  1911  the  Boston  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  reported  a  plan  of 
federation  through  tlie  creation  of  a 
metropolitan  council  consisting  of  rep- 
resentatives of  the  various  municipali- 
ties. In  the  same  year  the  state  legis- 
lature created  a  second  commission  to 
consider  the  metropolitan  problem,  and 
this  body  recorMuiended  a  plan  of  loose 
federation  similar  to  the  plan  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce. '*  In  1919  at 
the  instance  of  Mayor  Peters  of  Boston 
a  bill  was  introduced  in  tlie  state 
legislature  authorizing  the  outright  an- 
nexation of  the  suburban  municipalities 
by  Boston.  The  idea  of  a  loose  federa- 
tion of  municipalities  was  abandoned 
by  the  mayor  in  the  hope  that  by  press- 
ing the  movement  for  annexation  he 
could  precipitate  discussion  which  would 
result  in  the  crystallization  of  i)ublic 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  unification, 
and  also  in  the  hojje  that  if  the  bill 
should  j)a.ss,  some  progress  toward 
unification  might  be  made  by  jjiece- 
meal  annexation.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  the  bill  did  not  succeed,  and 
that  unification  at  the  present  juncture 
seems  as  remote  as  ever. 

The  matter  of  city  and  county  dupli- 
cation is  not  a  large  factor  in  the  Boston 
problem,  although  the  metr(7])olitan 
district  intersects  the  boundaries  of 
five  counties.  The  reason  is  that  the 
county  in  Massachu.sctts  is  i)rimarily  a 
judicial  district  with  very  attenuated 
fumtions  of  local  goxcrnment,  and  that 
Suffolk  county,  which  is  wholly  in- 
cluded in  the  metropolitan  district,  has 
already  been  largely  con.solidated  with 
the  city  of  Boston.  The  l)asic  difficulty 
is  the  evolution  of  some  sort  of  plan  for 
unification  that  would  be  accejitable  to 
the  suburbs,  for  their  voting  strength  is 
as  great  as  that  of  IJoslon  and  nothing 
could  be  carried  against  the  will  of  the 

»  American  Puliticnl  Science  Review  (Supp.)  Vol.  VI, 
No.  1 ;  also  Annala  of  the  American  Academy,  1913,  pp. 
134-IS2. 


suburbs.  The  borough  plan  has  been 
considered  and  studied,  but  it  is  rec- 
ognized that  the  application  of  the 
borough  plan  to  the  Boston  problem 
would  not  be  as  ea.sy  as  it  was  in  the 
case  of  New  York.  In  the  latter  case  it 
was  onlyneces.sar\-to  achieve  a  bilateral 
compromise  between  New  York  and 
Brooklyn,  where  in  Boston  a  several 
sided  compromise  would  be  necessary. 

CHIC.VGO's  UXIFICATIOX  PROBLEM 

Probably  metropolitan  Chicago  has 
the  most  bewildering  .system  of  local 
government  in  the  United  States  at  the 
present  time.  It  is  almost  incredible 
that  such  a  crazy-quilt  of  interwoven, 
overlapping,  cross-pulling  political 
agencies  could  be  the  product  of  sane 
minds.  Functioning  within  the  city  of 
Chicago  there  are  thirty-eight  distinct 
local  governments,  and  in  Cook  county 
as  a  whole,  which  includes  the  major 
j)ortion  of  the  metropolitan  area,  there 
are  three  hundred  .•iiui  ninety-two. 
Besides  the  city  government  of  Chicago 
and  the  government  of  Cook  county 
there  are  the  sanitary  district,  towns, 
villages,  school  districts,  drainage  dis- 
tricts, park  districts,  forest  preserve 
districts,  library  districts,  in  endless 
and  uns[)eakable  confusion.  Take  the 
case  of  the  towns,  for  example.  There 
are  thirty-eight  towns  in  Cook  county; 
eight  are  entirely  within  the  city  of 
Chicago;  six  others  lie  partly  within 
and  partly  without  the  city;  ten  are 
entirely  within  the  .sanitary  district; 
nine  are  partly  within  and  partly  with- 
out the  sanitary  district;  and  eleven 
are  entirely  without  the  sanitary  dis- 
trict. Or  take  the  case  of  the  incor- 
l)orated  municipalities.  There  are 
seventy-eight  incor[)orated  municipali- 
ties in  Cook  county  in  addition  to 
Chicago,  and  f)f  these  forty-six  are 
within  the  sanitary  district  and  the 
remainder  without.     And  so  it  is  with 


192-2]     THE  POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        247 


park  districts,  school  districts,  drainage 
districts,  and  the  Hke.  There  is  no 
language  obscure  enough  to  depict  the 
reality  of  the  chaos  which  exists."" 

The  mo^■ement  for  unified  local 
government  in  Chicago  dates  back  as 
far  as  the  constitutional  convention  of 
1870  when  an  effort  was  made  to  induce 
the  convention  to  include  in  the  draft 
submitted  to  the  people  a  provision 
authorizing  any  city  of  over  200,000 
inlaabitants  to  be  organized  as  a  sepa- 
rate county.  AVhen  this  effort  was 
balked  the  consolidation  idea  lan- 
guished for  a  niunber  of  years.  In  1899 
a  constitutional  amendment  was  pro- 
posed in  the  legislature  of  the  state  to 
provide  for  consolidation  of  local 
governments  in  Chicago,  but  it  did  not 
pass.  Four  years  later  another  amend- 
ment was  proposed,  submitted  to  the 
people,  and  ratified.  The  effect  of  this 
was  to  make  possible  special  legislation 
for  Chicago,  subject  to  local  referen- 
dum, and  also  to  authorize  the  con- 
solidation of  local  governments  entirely 
within  the  boundaries  of  the  city. 
Acting  under  the  amendment  of  1904,  a 
charter  convention  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  prepared  a  comprehensi\'e 
charter  effecting  many  consolidations. 
Unliappily  this  charter  was  modified  by 
the  state  legislature  and  subsequently 
defeated  at  the  polls.  In  1915  a 
second  charter  was  prepared  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters,  and  it  also  was 
defeated . 

The  leading  proponent  of  unification 
of  local  governments  in  Chicago  in 
recent  j-ears  has  been  the  Chicago 
Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency,  which  has 
published  a  series  of  studies  showing 
the  complexity  of  the  present  system, 
the  savings  and  improvements  possible 
under  a  imified  plan  of  government, 
and   has   made   specific   recommenda- 

wSee  Bulletin  No.  11  prepared  by  the  Legislative 
Reference  Bureau  for  the  Illinois  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, 1920. 


tions  for  the  consolidation  and  reorgan- 
ization of  local  governments.  In  1920 
the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  drafted 
and  put  before  the  Illinois  constitu- 
tional convention  a  proposed  article  of 
the  constitution  to  provide  the  author- 
ization and  the  machinery  to  effect  the 
political  unification  of  metropolitan 
Chicago.'^  Although  this  proposal  was 
not  accepted  in  toto  by  the  convention, 
it  has  formulated  and  adopted  three 
provisions  allowing  for  the  consolida- 
tion of  local  governments  in  Chicago. 
The  proposed  Chicago  home  rule  article 
pro\ides  for  the  consolidation  of  all 
local  governments  iii  the  limits  of  the 
city  by  charter  convention,  subject  to 
certain  reservations  and  conditions  in 
the  event  of  the  application  of  the  con- 
solidation to  the  Sanitary  District  and 
the  Forest  Preserve  District.  The 
other  two  provisions  are  regarded  as  of 
doubtfid  value  and  probably  will  never 
be  invoked.  All  three  of  these  provisions 
have  passed  their  second  reading  in  the 
convention,  and  at  the  present  writing 
(June  27,  1922)  the  convention  is  meet- 
ing to  consider  the  entire  constitutional 
draft  on  third  reading. 


UNIFICATION      PROPOSED    FOR 
CLEVELAND 

The  same  anomalies  of  local  govern- 
ment that  have  been  observed  in  other 
metropolitan  centers  are  to  be  found  in 
Cleveland  and  Cuyahoga  county.  The 
population  of  Cleveland  is  796,841,  but 
in  the  contiguous  suburban  commimi- 
ties  of  East  Cleveland,  Cleveland 
Heights,  Lakewood,  West  Park,  Shaker 
Heights,  Bratenahl,  and  Euclid  Village, 
there  is  a  combined  population  of 
101,820  which  in  every  practical  sense 
is  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  city  of  Cleve- 
land. This  integrated  metropolitan 
population  is  ninety-five  per  cent  of  the 

II  See  Bulletin  No.  38  of  Chicago  Bureau  of  Public 
Efficiency,  Jan,  1920 


248 


NATION.\L  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 


[August 


population  of  Cuyahoga  county  and 
could  be  readily  governed  as  one  munic- 
ipal corporation;  but  Cuyahoga  county 
is  overlaid  with  ninety-three  detached 
and  disconnected  units  of  local  self- 
government,  these  being  largely  cities, 
villages,  townships,  and  school  districts 
in  the  metropolitan  area. 

The  disadvantages  of  disintegration 
anil  the  corresponding  advantages  of 
unification  have  not  received  adequate 
consideration  in  Cleveland  and  her 
suburban  satellites,  and  consequently 
the  movement  for  consolidation  has 
made  little  progress.  Two  civic  organ- 
izations— The  Civic  I^eague  and  the 
County  Charter  Government  Associa- 
tion— have  given  the  matter  some  at- 
tention, but  have  felt  imable  to  under- 
take an  intensive  and  persistent  cam- 
paign. In  1919  a  resolution  proposing 
an  amendment  to  the  state  constitution, 
which  wouKl  provide  for  a  consolidated 
form  of  city  and  county  government, 
was  introduced  in  the  state  senate,  but 
it  was  shelved  in  committee,  no  op- 
portunity being  given  for  its  considera- 
tion. In  19'21  Representative  Davis 
of  Cuyahoga  county  introduced  a  bill 
to  facilitate  consolidation  of  local 
governments  in  Cuyahoga  county,  but 
this  likewise  received  scant  considera- 
tion by  the  legislature.  In  the  spring 
of  the  jjresent  year  movements  for 
annexation  develo])ed  in  West  Park  and 
Lakewood,  and  commissions  are  now  at 
work  preparing  terms  of  annexation  to 
be  later  submitted  to  the  voters. 


*  DEFEAT  OF  PROPOSED  CONSOLIDATION, 
ALAMEDA  COUNTY,  CALIFORNIA 

In  Alameda  county,  California,  on 
the  eastern  shore  of  San  Francisco  Hay, 
has  grown  uj)  a  metropolitan  district  of 

*  For  a  more  detailed  mi-oiint  of  the  .\lnnieda 
county  proposnls  see  Uic  National  Mi'mncii'al 
Hkvikw  for  .Inly  litii,  which  appeared  uflcr  this 
article  was  in  type. 


considerable  proportions.  The  popu- 
lation of  Alameda  county  is  344,177,  of 
which  314,575  are  classed  as  urban 
residents  by  the  Federal  census  of  1920. 
This  urban  population  is  conc-entrated 
mainly  in  the  contiguous  and  occasion- 
ally overlapping  cities  of  Oakland, 
Berkeley,  Alameda,  Piedmont,  Emery- 
ville, Albany  and  San  Leandro.  The 
remainder  of  the  county,  though  more 
or  less  rural  in  character,  is  much 
affected  by  the  character  of  govern- 
ment of  the  urban  centers. 

Prominent  citizens  have  long  been 
aware  that  in  all  large  public  matters 
the  metropolitan  district  of  Alameda 
coimty  should  be  thoroughly  unified, 
and  a  campaign  looking  toward  that 
end  has  been  going  on  for  many  years. 
In  1916  the  City  and  County  (iovern- 
ment  Association  of  Alameda  County 
presented  a  plan  for  consolidation  cal- 
culated to  meet  the  opposition  of  the 
outlying  comnmnities  to  any  form  of 
organic  union  with  Oakland  which 
would  submerge  their  individualities. 
The  plan  propo.sed  rather  a  loose 
federal  form  of  organization  under 
which  the  component  cities  would  be- 
come autonomous  Iwroughs  and  would 
retain  important  local  powers  while 
such  functions  as  police  protection,  pro- 
motion of  public  health,  assessment 
and  collection  of  taxes,  would  be  dele- 
gated to  the  central  government.  A 
unic|ue  feature  of  the  plan  was  that  it 
])roposed  to  combine  the  city-manager 
idea  with  that  of  an  elected  mayor.'* 

Unfortunately  it  was  not  foreseen 
that  this  proposition  was  doomed  to 
sure  defeat  because  of  the  way  in 
which,  under  the  state  constitution,  it 
had  to  be  submitted  to  the  voters  of  the 
smaller  cities.  The  reorganization  i)lan 
could  not  be  ])resented  directly  to  the 
voters  of  the  metropolitan  district  to 

la  For  aummary  of  the  proposed  rharter  see  pamphlet 
publielied  by  City  and  County  Government  Aaaoeia- 
tion  of  Alameda  County,  Sept.  1016. 


1922]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        249 


stand  or  fall  on  its  merits.  According 
to  the  state  constitution  the  initiative 
nuist  be  taken  by  a  city  ha\'ing  a  popu- 
lation of  50,000  or  more  by  the  preced- 
ing Federal  census,  which  meant  that 
only  Oakland  could  take  the  lead. 
Furthermore  the  question  of  annexa- 
tion had  fo  be  submitted  to  each  of  the 
contiguous  nnmici]):tlities  separately. 
This  meant  that  the  various  munici- 
palities would  have  to  vote  to  merge 
themselves  with  Oakland  before  the 
question  of  a  new  form  of  government 
could  be  taken  up,  and  it  did  not  seem 
expedient  to  proceed  in  this  way. 

The  proponents  of  the  federation 
plan  then  proceeded  to  secure  an 
amendment  to  the  state  constitution, 
which  would  relieve  them  of  the  em- 
barrassments encountered  under  the 
existing  provisions  relating  to  munici- 
pal consolidation.  In  1918  an  amend- 
ment was  put  up  and  adopted,  which 
provitled  that  a  charter  might  be  pre- 
pared by  a  board  elected  by  the  citi- 
zens of  an  entire  county  prior  to  the 
submission  of  the  question  of  con- 
solidation, and  that  then  the  question 
of  consolidation  should  be  put  to  each 
municipality  separately  to  decide 
whether  or  not  it  could  come  in  under 
the  proposed  charter.  Acting  under 
the  provisions  of  this  amendment  a 
city-county  manager  charter  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  of  the  county  on 
November  15,  1921  and  defeated.  This 
outcome  was  said  to  be  attributable  to 
the  unwillingness  of  the  smaller  cities 
to  give  up  their  individualitj'  and 
merge  with  Oakland.  From  the  stand- 
point of  the  experimentalist  it  is  unfor- 
tunate that  this  unique  charter  is  not 
to  have  a  trial.  So  many  innovations 
are  seldom  combined  in  one  instru- 
ment of  government.  The  governing 
body  was  to  have  been  a  metropol- 
itan council  of  seven  members  elected 
by  districts.  The  administrative  func- 
tions of  the  council  would  have  been 


exercised  by  a  manager  appointed  by 
the  council  at  a  salary  of  not  less  than 
$12,000  a  year.  Only  the  district  at- 
torney, assessor,  auditor,  and  judges 
would  have  remained  elective,  and  all 
other  city  and  county  offices  were  to 
ha\'e  been  con.solidated  or  abolished 
entirely.  In  order  to  preserve  a  limited 
amount  of  local  autonomy  for  the  sev- 
eral cities  and  towns  to  be  consolidated 
a  scheme  of  borough  government  was 
to  have  been  combined  with  the  city- 
coimty  manager  plan  just  described. 

PROPOSED   CITY   AND   COUNTY   CONSOLI- 
DATION, PORTLAND,  OREGON 

Since  1913  the  question  of  the  con- 
solidation of  the  city  of  Portland  and 
the  county  of  Multnomah  has  been 
seriously  agitated.  This  propaganda 
led  in  1919  to  a  movement,  in  which 
fifteen  civic  organizations  joined,  for  a 
constitutional  amendment  to  effect 
consolidation.  Committees  were  ap- 
pointed by  each  of  the  cooperating 
organizations,  and  after  some  weeks  of 
labor  a  proposed  amendment  was 
evolved.  A  resolution  authorizing  the 
submission  of  this  amendment  to  the 
\-oters  was  introduced  in  the  state 
senate  in  January,  1919,  by  the  Mult- 
nomah county  delegation.  It  passed 
the  senate,  but  was  defeated  in  the 
lower  house  by  the  machinations  of 
hostile  political  interests.  It  was  then 
proposed  to  get  it  before  the  voters  by 
initiative  petition,  but  this  as  yet  has 
not  been  done. 

Had  the  amendment  passed  it  would 
have  provided  for  the  outright  con- 
solidation of  the  city  of  Portland,  the 
city  of  Gresham,  the  city  of  Fairview, 
the  city  of  Troutdale,  the  port  of  Port- 
land, and  county  of  Multnomah,  all 
school  districts  and  road  districts  in 
Multnomah  county,  into  a  single  body 
politic  and  corporate  to  be  styled  "The 
City  and  County  of  Portland." 


250 


NATIONAL  MUM<  IPAL  RKMKW 


[August 


CONSOLIDATION  MOVEaMENT  IN   LOS 
ANGELES 

The  city  of  Los  Angeles  with  its 
environs  south  of  tlie  Sierra  ^Lidre 
mountains  coni|)oses  a  metropolitan 
district  substantially  unified  in  eco- 
nomic and  social  interests,  l)ut  divided 
politically  into  tliirty-eifjht  munici- 
palities, one  hundred  and  eif;hty-seven 
school  districts,  thirty-four  lighting 
districts,  thirty-three  roads  districts, 
three  waterworks  districts,  two  pro- 
tection <listricfs  and  one  county.  The 
population  of  this  area  is  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  800,000. 

Various  forms  of  political  integration 
have  been  ad\-ocated  for  this  metro])ol- 
ilan  area  for  many  years,  and  many 
investigations  and  stuilies  have  been 
made  by  civic  agencies  and  oflicial 
bodies;  but  the  net  results  have  been 
divided  counsels  and  inability  to  unite 
upon  any  definite  plan  of  action.  The 
latest  and  most  comi)rehensive  survey 
of  the  problem  is  the  brochure  pub- 
lished by  the  'i'ax])ayers'  Association  of 
California  in  Octolu^r,  1917.  This  re- 
port advocates  the  severance  of  the 
metropolitan  ilistrict  from  Los  .\ngeles 
county  and  the  creation  of  a  unitary 
government  of  the  manager  type  for 
the  consolidated  munici[)alities. 

No  active  campaign  in  behalf  of  this 
plan  has  been  midertaken,  and  recent 
advices  indicate  that  events  are  now 
proceeding  toward  a  different  result. 
The  city  of  Los  .Vngeles  has  established 
an  annexation  and  consolidation  com- 
mission, and  this  body  is  in  process  of 
develoj)ing  a  consistent  and  compre- 
hensive program  of  unification.  The 
policy  is  not  aggressive,  but  educative. 
The  program,  as  the  secretary  of  the 
commission  stales  it,  "consists  of  lend- 
ing encouragement  and  a.ssistance  in 
such  ways  as  we  can  to  tho.se  communi- 
ties who  of  their  own  accord  find  rea- 
sons that  seem  to  argue  for  their  be- 


coming a  part  of  the  larger  unit."  To 
this  it  might  be  added  that  the  control 
of  the  city  of  Ixis  Angeles  over  the 
water  sujjply  of  the  metrojwlitan  area 
and  over  the  facilities  for  .sewage  dis- 
posal are  such  that  many  of  the  subur- 
ban municipalities  have  no  great  dif- 
ficulty in  discovering  most  cogent  and 
compelling  rea.sons  for  consolidation 
with  Los  Angeles. 

PROBLE.M  OF  ESSEX  COINTY,  NEW 
JERSEY 

One  of  the  most  peculiar  local  govern- 
ment problems  in  the  country  is  that  of 
Essez  county.  New  Jersey.  The  county 
has  an  area  of  1'27  scpiare  miles,  but 
ninety-six  |>er  cent  of  its  poj)ulation  is 
in  the  metropolitan  section  lying  east 
of  the  Watchung  ridge.  Newark  with 
a  |)opnlation  of  414, '21G  is  the  nucleus 
of  this  metropolitan  conunimily,  but  in 
addition  to  Newark  there  are  in  the 
metropolitan  area  eleven  other  nmnici- 
jjalities  whose  aggregate  population  is 
about  '•2.57,000.  Furthermore,  this  area 
is  subject  to  the  go^■e^nment  of  Essex 
county,  to  four  stale-controlled  in- 
strumentalities for  local  go^•ernment, 
and  to  fi\e  administrative  agencies  ap- 
jiointed  by  the  courts.  It  was  sjiid 
tliat  Newark  is  the  nucleus  of  this 
metroi)olitan  area,  but  that  is  hardly 
accurate.  .Vlthough  j)hysical  contiguity 
does  bring  alxjut  considerable  com- 
munity of  interest  between  Newark  and 
the  outlying  municipalities,  several  of 
the  latter,  such  as  Kast  Orange,  (lien 
Ridge,  an<l  Montclair,  are  tpiite  as 
innch  residential  suburbs  of  New  ^'ork 
as  of  .Newark.  This  fact  tends  to 
weaken  the  conununity  bond  through- 
out the  metropolitan  district  and 
engenders  a  fierce  spirit  of  particular- 
ism which  is  most  difficult  to  combat. 

.Vlthough  there  nuiy  Ik-  doubt 
whether  the  social  and  economic 
solidarity  of  the  metropolitan  portion 


1922]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES        251 


of  Essex  county  is  as  great  as  in  most 
metropolitan  centers,  it  is  ne\-ertlieless 
true  that  the  absence  of  political  unity 
is  tlie  cause  of  many  anomalous  condi- 
tions which  give  rise  to  civic  ills.  In 
the  summer  of  191!)  the  New  York 
Biu-eau  of  Municipal  Research  at  the 
request  of  the  Newark  Chamber  of 
Commerce  made  an  administrative 
survej'  which  brought  to  light  many  of 
the  pernicious  consecjuences  of  political 
disintegration  in  Essex  coimty.'"  It 
was  found  that  comprehensive  city 
planning,  a  necessity  if  the  metropoli- 
tan district  is  to  develop  properly, 
could  not  be  carried  out  because  of 
inability  of  the  several  mmiicipalities  to 
cooperate;  it  was  found  that  there  was 
costly  and  blundering  duplication  in 
the  handling  of  dependents,  defectives, 
and  criminals;  it  was  observed  that  the 
fire  hazard  was  greatly  magnified  by 
the  lack  of  standardization  of.  fire- 
fighting  equipment  throughout  the 
metropolitan  area;  it  was  discovered 
that  highway  imi^rovements  were  re- 
tarded and  unintelligentlydone  because 
of  the  multiplicity  of  conflicting  politi- 
cal jiu"isdictions;  and  it  was  found  that 
the  public  health  was  constantly  im- 
perilled by  a  multiplicity  of  diverse 
health  codes  and  regulations  adminis- 
tered by  part-time  health  officers. 

To  cure  these  conditions  the  New 
York  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 

i»  This  report  has  not  been  printed  in  fuU,  but  an 
abstract  of  it  was  published  by  the  Newark  Chamber  of 
Commerce. 


recommended  the  detachment  of  the 
metropolitan  and  the  rural  sections  of 
Essex  County,  and  the  creation  of  some 
sort  of  political  unity  in  the  former. 
It  was  suggested  that  the  governmental 
machinery  of  Essex  county  be  merged 
with  that  set  up  for  the  metropolitan 
area,  and  that  the  municipalities  with- 
in the  metropolitan  area  should  ferlerate 
under  some  sort  of  super-government 
which  should  have  power  to  act  in  all 
matters  of  general,  as  distinguished 
from  purely  local  concern.  No  definite 
steps  have  been  taken  to  put  these 
recommendations  into  effect,  although 
certain  civic  bodies  and  newspapers 
have  given  them  support. 


UNIFICATION  RECEIVING  ATTENTION   IN 
OTHER  CITIES 

The  question  of  consolidation  of 
local  governments  has  received  atten- 
tion in  a  great  many  other  cities  where 
the  situation  is  probably  cjuite  as  bad 
as  in  the  cases  discussed  above,  but 
where  for  one  reason  or  another  no 
definite  consolidation  movement  has 
crystallized.  Mention  may  be  made 
of  Detroit,  Buffalo,  Indianapolis,  Mil- 
waukee, Cincinnati,  Seattle,  Jersey 
City,  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  Rochester,  and 
Wilmington,  Delaware.  Word  has  been 
received  also  that  a  charter  commission 
has  recently  been  chosen  in  San  Diego, 
California,  to  prepare  a  consolidated 
city  and  county  charter. 


SUMMARY 


It  is  extremely  hazardous  to  attempt 
to  draw  general  conclusions  from  such 
a  large  number  of  widely  varying  cases 
as  have  been  reviewed  in  the  foregoing 
pages.  There  are,  however,  certain 
facts  which  ought,  for  the  convenience 
of  the  reader,  to  be  brought  together 
in  some  sort  of  summary. 


The  first  striking  fact  with  reference 
to  the  process  of  unification  is  that  in  no 
instance  has  a  metropolitan  district 
been  able  to  compass  its  own  unifica- 
tion. Statutory  and  constitutional 
obstacles  have  invariably  made  it  neces- 
sary to  obtain  legislation  or  constitu- 
tional amendments,  and  in  several  cases 


252 


NATION.\L  1VIUNICIP-\L  REVIEW 


[August 


unification  has  been  accomplished  by 
the  fiat  of  these  enactments.  It  is  also 
to  be  observetl  that  gradual  consolida- 
tion by  occasional  annexation  of  cluster- 
ing municij)alities  to  a  central  one  has 
not  been  a  successful  mode  of  achie\-- 
ing  political  integration.  It  will  be 
noted  also  that  most  of  the  cities  now 
striving  for  unification  have  statutorj* 
or  constitutional  changes  as  the  first 
objective  of  their  resi)eclive  canijiaigns. 

Another  onlstauding  fact  is  that 
popular  con.scnt  to  unification  has 
.seldom  been  deemed  indispensable. 
The  only  ca.ses  in  which  the  question 
was  squarely  presented  to  all  of  the 
people  concerned  were  St.  Louis  and 
Alameda  County.  The  referendum 
which  preceded  consolidation  in  New 
York  had  no  legal  force,  and  the  result 
was  open  to  various  constructions. 
The  Pittsburgh  referentlum  was  de- 
signedly a  trick  election,  although  it 
was  held  legally  binding.  The  plebi- 
scite in  the  case  of  Den^•er  included  the 
voters  of  the  entire  state,  which  was  in 
effect  taking  the  power  to  decide  the 
matter  out  of  the  hands  of  the  city. 
Apparently  the  spirit  of  the  present 
time  is  more  democratic,  for  nearly  all 
of  the  cities  now  working  for  unification 
contemplate  a  reference  of  the  question 
to  the  peojjle  of  the  districts  im- 
mediately concerned. 

In  the  matter  of  iiecimiary  and  pro- 
prietary adjustments  each  case  is  siii 
generis,  but  there  is  a  general  tendency 
for  the  succeeding  government  to  take 
over  all  of  the  assets  and  assume  all  of 
the  obligations  of  its  component  i>arls. 

Another  significant  fact  is  that  in  no 
ease  has  unification  been  unaccompa- 
nied by  some  kind  of  governmental  re- 
organization. Except  in  the  case  of 
New  York,  it  has  l>een  jMissible  to  re- 
organize the  government  on  a  unitary 
basis;  but  many  cities  now  engaged  in 
campaigns  for  unification  have  Iwen 
greatly  attracted  by  the  borough  plan 


as  worked  out  in  New  York.  \Miether 
that  plan  would  be  adaptable  to  all 
cases  may  be  seriously  doubted.  It  is 
usually  possible  to  nuike  all  proper  and 
needful  concessions  to  local  sentiment 
without  granting  the  local  autonomy 
incident  to  the  borough  plan.  In  the 
reorganization  of  government  follow- 
ing the  consolidation  of  cit\  and  county, 
there  has  been  a  noticeable  reluctance 
to  go  the  whole  distance  in  the  elimina- 
tion of  duplication,  and  consequently 
we  find  many  amusing  and  incongruous 
survi\als. 

Extravagant  claims  of  efficiency  and 
economy  subsequent  to  political  uni- 
fication have  been  made  everywhere, 
but  are  exceedingly  difficult  to  pin 
down  to  hard  facts.  The  simplification 
of  the  organization  of  local  government 
and  the  elimination  of  superfluous  of- 
fices arid  .services  .should  naturally  re- 
sult in  great  savings,  but  there  have 
been  instances  in  which  such  savings 
have  been  hard  to  find.  The  only  ex- 
planation of  these  cases,  aside  from 
maladministration,  is  that  unification 
involved  an  enormous  expansion  of 
municipal  .services,  which  together  with 
the  pre-existing  heavy  burden  of  debt 
made  a  reduction  of  the  cost  of  gov- 
ernment impossible.  Efficiency  is  im- 
ponderable and  difficult  to  measure, 
but  it  may  be  assumed  that  certain 
gains  in  efficiency  have  followed  polit- 
ical unification  practically  every- 
where; it  could  not  well  I>e  otherwise. 

One  gain  about  which  there  can  be 
little  doubt  is  the  amelioration  of  civic 
conditions  subsequent  to  jwlitical  imi- 
(ication  of  melropolitan  conuntmities. 
Klaborate  jiublic  impro\ement.s,  better 
articulation  of  thoroughfares,  extended 
and  improved  public  utility  services, 
more  comiirehensive  and  careful  city 
))lanuing,  more  adecpiate  educational 
and  eleenui.synary  institutions,  and 
better  governmental  .service.s — these 
are  reported  as  the  invariable  results  of 


Idii]      THE   POLITICAL  INTEGRATION  OF  COMMUNITIES         253 


political  unification.  And  as  these  are 
in  a  rough  way  a  fair  measure  of  the 
material  and  spiritual  progress  of  com- 
munities, it  seems  not  too  much  to 
conclude  that  political   integration   is 


indispensable  to  every  metropolitaii' 
community  that  aspires  to  attain  its 
maximum  development  as  a  center  of 
industrial,  commercial  and  social  ac- 
tivity. 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION 

Best  Basis  for  the  City  Manager  Plan 

Send  25c  for  Ut.  No.  IO(How  PR   Works  in  Sacramento) 
and  new  Ut.  No.  5  (Explanation  o(  Hare  System  of  P.  R.) 

Still  better,  join  the  Leisuc-     Due.,  $2.  pay  for  quarterly 
Review  and  all  other  literature  for  year. 

PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION  LEAGUE 
1417  LOCUST  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA 


R.  HUSSELMAN 

Consulting  Engineer 

Design  and   Construction   of   Power  Stations   and 

Lighting  Sj-stems 

Reports,  Estimates  and  Specifications 

Appraisals    and    Rate   Investigations 

Electric.  Gas  and  Street  Railway 

CUYAHOGA  BLOC.  CLEVELAND,  OHIO 


CHAS.  BROSSMAN 

Mem.Am.Soc.C.E.  Mem.  Am.Soc.  M.E. 

Consulting  Engineer 

Water  Works  and  Electric  Light  Plants 

Sewerage  and  Sewage  Disposal 
Merchants  Bank,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 


GOVERNMENTAL  SURVEYS 


g-Tui 


-Public  Wo 


-Kipei 


J.  L.  JACOBS  &  COMPANY 

Municipal  Conmuitant*  and  Engineera 
Monadnock  Building,  Chicago 

p^r  11  «rs.'  ezpf rtencetnCity.Countj,  and  Slate Studiaa) 


SPEAKERS 

The  National  Municipal  League  maintain.'!  a  list  of  per.sons  in  various 

parts  of  the  country  prepared  to  make  addresses  on 

city,  county  and  state  government. 

Augustus  R.  Hatton,  Ph.D.,  charter  consultant  for  the 
National  Municipal  League,  is  prepared  to  speak  on  the 
subjects  listed  below.  Dr.  Hatton  is  a  ,«ound  and  brilliant 
speaker  and  campaigner.  He  is  obtainable  on  a  fee  basis 
subject  to  prior  engagement.  (Address  National  Municipal 
League,  261  Broadway,  New  York.) 

SUBJECTS 

1.  Representative  Government.     What  is  it?     Do  we  want  it.'     Can  we  have  it? 

2.  The  Coming  of  Municipal  Democracy.  A  discussion  of  the  evolution  of  types  of 
city  government  with  a  frank  evaluation  of  the  strength  and  weaknesses  of  each. 

3.  The  Problem  of  the  Ballot,  The  evolution  of  the  forms  of  voting  and  electoral 
processes  with  their  effects  on  popular  government. 

•t,  American  Free  Cities.  The  experience  of  .\merican  cities  with  constitutional 
home  rule, 

5,  Is  Manager  Government  Applicable  to  Oiu'  Largest  Cities?  Conducted  as  a 
debate  if  desired,  Dr,  Hatton  taking  the  affirmative, 

6,  Getting  Results  for  the  People's  Money,  Does  it  matter?  How  can  it  be  brought 
about? 

7,  ^\'hat  Is  Wrong  with  State  Governments?  An  analysis  of  the  problems  of  state 
organization  and  administration  with  some  suggested  remedies  for  defects  everywhere 
admitted. 


A  M 
Pocl- 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WiLL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1  CO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


mt    9    1933 
iiOV   10  1933 


OCT  30  1937 


A  ^ 

Tec 


yj^ 


\^n^ 


"W^ 


^6&i 


\^ 


cO 


Th" 


OF  THE 
EAGUE 

50  cents 
-00  per  hundred 
unty  GovCTn- 

d  Elections. 
Enterprises. 

25  cents 
-.00  per  hundred 

tandardiza- 
'  )lic  Service, 
al  Primary. 
;  City  Plan. 
Reorganiza- 


■)St    for    Street 


->ning. 
lustrated.) 


25  cents 
25  cents 
25  cents 
25  cents 
25  cents 


joks 

meut   by   Com- 
-10. 
indemnation. 


Town  Planning.     $2.85. 
City  Planning.     $2.60. 
Satellite  Cities.     $2.60. 
The  Social  Center.     $2.60 
The  City  Manager.     $2.60 


jon   of  Munici- 
LD2l-100m-T,'aS  $2.60. 

12.  The  Initiative,    Referendum 
and  Recall.     $2.85. 

13.  Lower    Living    Costs    In 
Cities.     $2.60. 

14.  Woman's   Work   in   Munici- 
palities.    $2.60. 


15.     County  Government.     $2.10. 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 

261   BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK 

Annual  Subscription ,       . 

Free  to  Members  of  National  Municipal  League 


48330? 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


:■:^■>o^^'■:-v:  \ 


